1 2025:CGHC:28094-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1079 of 2022 Bisan Lal Salame S/o Late Bullu Ram Salame Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Paurjhola, Police Station – Mohla, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mohla, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26 .06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.07 18:09:03 +0530 2 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for 10 year and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, 06 months R.I. more. Section 376-ਠ of the IPC Life imprisonment till natural death and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, 06 months R.I. more. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.10.2019, the victim, who was physically and mentally disabled and alone at home, was raped by the appellant when he forcibly entered her house. The victim's mother (PW-1) returned home from work and witnessed the appellant raping her daughter. She beat the appellant with a stick and called out to nearby residents for help. The victim's parents and others arrived, and the victim's mother informed them about the incident. Thereafter a written complaint (Ex.P/1) was filed at the Police Station, leading to the registration of an FIR (Ex.P/2) against the appellant under Sections 450 and 376-ਠ of the IPC at Mohla Police Station bearing Crime No. 144 of 2019. The victim's underwear, worn during the incident, was seized and sent for examination. The victim's genital examination was conducted with 3 her parents’ consent vide Ex.P/3, and samples, including vaginal slides, loose hair, pubic hair, fingernail clippings, and scalp hair, were collected and sent for chemical analysis. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/37, and his underwear was seized and sent for examination. The appellant’s ability to engage in sexual intercourse was assessed vide Ex.P/21, and his underwear and samples were sent for chemical analysis. The site of the incident was inspected, and a site plan and surveyor's map were prepared. Witness statements were recorded, including the victim's mother's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. Due to the victim's disability (being deaf and mute), her statement could not be recorded through a specialist. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 450 and 376-D of the IPC. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 5. Learned trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376-ਠ of the IPC against the appellant. 6. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which he denied the materials appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, 4 the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph-2 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that although conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Devki Bai Yadav (PW-1), who is the mother of the victim and eyewitness of the incident, but her evidence does not inspire confidence and not trustworthy, her evidence is not safe for placing reliance in absence of any corroboration from independent source. Thus, the conviction of the appellant herein is unsustainable, inadmissible and bad in law. It has been further contended that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellant for commission of heinous offence of rape, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and appellant be acquitted/discharged from the said offence. He lastly submits that the learned trial Court has awarded the sentence of life imprisonment, which would mean imprisonment for rest of the natural life which is too harsh considering the evidence available on record and the same may be converted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the offences committed by the appellant were heinous in nature and thus, the learned trial Court had rightly convicted him. He submitted that the learned trial Court had considered all the arguments made by the appellant and there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a 5 reasonable doubt. He further submits that the prosecution has proved that the victim is a mentally challenged girl and the same is fortified by the Disability Certificate (Ex.P/6) and which is corroborated by the statement of Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-11) which makes it crystal clear that the victim was a mentally and physically challenged girl. Thus, this is the un-rebutted evidence against the appellant. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned trial Court and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 10. In the present case conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the testimony of Devki Bai Yadav (PW-1), who is the mother of the victim and eyewitness of the incident. 11. Regarding the allegation of rape committed by the appellant against the victim, Devki Bai Yadav (PW-1), who is the mother of the victim and eyewitness of the incident, stated in her examination-in-chief that the appellant had removed her daughter's underwear and committed the offence when she intervened, beating the appellant with a stick and calling out for help from neighbours. The victim's father (PW-2) and brother (PW- 5) have corroborated with the statement of Devki Bai Yadav (PW-1). Independent witnesses, Mahaveer Mandavi (PW-3), Asant Purame (PW- 7), Janak Lal Tulavi (PW-8), and Sukhdev Netam (PW-12), have also supported the testimony of the mother of the victim. Asant Purame (PW- 6 7), Janak Lal Tulavi (PW-8), and Sukhdev Netam (PW-12) have further stated that when they arrived at the crime scene, the appellant was sitting there wearing only his underwear. They reported that the victim's mother had assaulted the appellant with a stick, causing injuries to his forehead, face, and left eye. 12. Inspector, Nilesh Pandey (PW-17) has stated in his deposition that the FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the appellant at Police Station Mohla in Crime No. 144 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376-ਠ of the IPC, on the basis of a written complaint (Ex.P/1) submitted by the mother (PW-1) of the victim. The incident took place on 26.10.2019 at around 1:00 p.m., and on the same day, at 5:15 p.m., the report of the incident was registered at the Police Station. The distance between the place of the incident and the Police Station is approximately 12 kilometers. The victim’s family belongs to a rural background. 13. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that immediately after the incident, the villagers were informed, and they went to the victim’s house, where the appellant was found at the spot wearing only underwear and, upon questioning, admitted his mistake. Thereafter, a vehicle was arranged, and the appellant was taken to the Police Station, where the report was lodged. Hence, it appears to be no possibility that the report was lodged after deliberation or with any ulterior motive. 14. Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-11), who examined the victim on 26.10.2019, at 6:30 p.m. at the Community Health Center in Mohla. She stated that the victim was mentally challenged and unable to walk or 7 communicate effectively. According to the victim's mother (PW-1), the victim had been subjected to an attempted rape on 26.10.2019, at 1:00 p.m. However, Dr. Thakur's medical examination report (Ex.P/24) did not reveal any sign of recent forceful intercourse. Dr. Thakur also examined the victim's underwear and found black stains on it, which she marked, sealed, and handed over to a Lady Constable constable for chemical analysis (Ex.P/25). Additionally, Dr. Thakur prepared three vaginal slides after examining the victim, sealed them, and handed them over to the Lady Constable for chemical analysis. 15. Dr. S.R. Kovachi (PW-9), who has examined the accused, had stated that on general examination, he found that the accused was normal and his mental condition was also normal. His secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed. Cremastic reflex was present and smegma was absent. According to his opinion, the accused was capable to commit sexual intercourse. The Doctor also certified the medical examination report (Ex.P/22), suggesting that the accused had injuries, including: pain and swelling in the left eye, mild redness in the right eye, pain in both arms, pain in the right thigh, chest, back, and back of the head. The Doctor opined that the injuries were consistent with blunt trauma and could have been caused by a stick. 16. In view of above discussion, we also affirm finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the perpetrator of instant crime. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidences of the mother (PW-1), who is mother of the victim and eyewitness of the incident, Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-11) and Dr. 8 S.V. Kovachi (PW-9) and FSL and MLC report of the victim, which were found to be positive, it is quite clear that the victim is a physically and mentally disabled girl, it is not possible for any parent to frame a person by making such a false allegation regarding their disabled daughter. It has not been proved by the appellant that the appellant had any previous enmity or animosity with the victim and her family. When the appellant was raped the victim, the mother of the victim (PW-1) saw him and separated him by hitting him with a stick and informed the people nearby about the incident and they came to the spot and the appellant was found there in an injured condition wearing underwear, which is proved by medical report of the appellant vide Ex.P/22. All the above facts show that the appellant entered into the house of the victim and knowing that she was physically and mentally disabled, established physical relation without her will and raped her. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. 18. Consequently, the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court under Section 450 of the IPC is hereby upheld. So far as the conviction under Section 376-ਠ of the IPC is concerned, the same is also upheld, however, this Court is of the view that the sentence of life imprisonment which would mean imprisonment for rest of the natural life, is too harsh and instead, the same is converted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. The imposition of fine amount and the default sentence is upheld. 19. The appellant is stated to be in jail since 27.10.2019 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above. 9 20. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 21. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan