HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2006
Hukum Singh
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
! Shri Jitendra Gupta and Shri Rishi
Rahul Soni counsel for the appellant
^ Shri Pravin Das GA for the
respondents/State
Hon Mr Justice Pritinker Diwaker
Dated:23/10/2009
: Judgment
CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
J U D G M E N T
(23 .10.2009)
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the
legality, validity and propriety of the judgment
dated 25.9.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 248/2005
convicting the accused/appellant under Section
376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years
with fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine
to further undergo simple imprisonment for six
months.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 1.8.2005
FIR
Ex. P-13 was lodged by the prosecutrix to the effect
that on 30.7.2005 when she was at home, the
accused/appellant who happens to be her father-in-
law came to her, offered her some sweet and
thereafter committed rape on her. Further case of
the prosecution is that when in the night she was
sleeping with her husband, accused/appellant again
came there and set her on fire. Thereafter, she was
sent for medical examination to District Hospital,
Durg where Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Rajput (PW-10) examined
her and gave her report Ex. P-10. In the medical
report, the doctor has opined that the prosecutrix
was having 40 per cent burn injuries, her secondary
sexual characteristics were fully developed, hymen
was absent and two fingers easily entered her
vagina. Accused/appellant was also sent for
medical examination to Community Health Centre,
Ahiwara where Dr. Dushyant Khosla examined him and
vide his report Ex. P-24 he opined that he was
capable of performing sexual intercourse. Vaginal
slides were prepared and sent for chemical
examination vide Ex. P-21 and the report of the
chemical analyzer is Ex. P-23. Thereafter, on
completion of investigation charge sheet was filed
against the accused/appellant.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty,
prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses.
Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded
under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
in which he denied the charges levelled against him
and pleaded his innocence and false implication in
the case.
4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as
mentioned above. However, he has been acquitted of
the charge under section 307 IPC.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record including the judgment
impugned.
6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that
the statement of the prosecutrix being full of
contradictions is not worthy of safe reliance.
According to him in paragraph No.6 of her
examination she has stated that for fear of
humiliation in the society, she put herself on fire
whereas in paragraph No.3 of her examination in
chief she has stated that the accused/appellant had
put her on fire and it is on the basis of such
contradictory version the trial Court has acquitted
him of the offence under section 307 IPC. He submits
that once on the same set of evidence the
accused/appellant has been acquitted of the offence
under section 307 IPC, he could not have been
convicted for the offence under section 376 (1) IPC
when no other material was brought forth by the
prosecution. He further submits that there is
contradiction in her statement and in the FIR with
respect to the time of the incident as in the FIR
the time has been shown as 6 p.m. whereas in her
statement it is shown as 10 p.m. According to him
when the prosecutrix is not sure about the time of
incident, it is proved that she has made false
allegations against the accused/appellant. He
submits that the prosecutrix has not made any
attempt to save herself nor has she raised any alarm
when the offence was being committed by the
accused/appellant. He submits that the medical
report also does not support the case of the
prosecution as the doctor who examined her has
opined that she was habitual to sexual intercourse
and therefore no definite opinion regarding rape
could be given. The last contention of the counsel
for the appellant is that the most important witness
could have been the husband of the prosecutrix
namely Raghunandan Yadav but he has not been
examined by the prosecution and therefore the
appellant is entitled for acquittal.
7. On the other hand counsel for the
respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and
submits that though the prosecutrix has been
declared hostile, she has categorically stated in
her evidence that she was subjected to rape by the
accused/appellant. She has further stated that as in
the sweet given to her by the accused/appellant
there was some intoxicant, she was not in a position
to save herself from the beastly clutches of the
appellant. He submits that in the cross examination
the prosecutrix has categorically stated as to the
manner in which she was ravished by the
accused/appellant when her husband was not at home.
According to him no material has been brought by the
defence to show as to why the accused/appellant has
been falsely implicated in the case and in these
circumstances the statement of the prosecutrix
cannot be disbelieved. He further submits that the
report of the incident was lodged immediately and
even if the husband of the prosecutrix has not been
examined, her testimony which is supported by the
evidence of her father Gokul Yadav (PW-5) who has
categorically stated that his daughter i.e. the
prosecutrix has told him that the accused/appellant
committed rape on her and on account of which she
made an attempt to commit suicide, is sufficient for
the conviction of the appellant.
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the
entire material available on record.
9. On subjecting the evidence on record to close
analysis, it is clear beyond shadow of doubt that
the prosecutrix was ravished by the
accused/appellant who unfortunately happens to be
her father in law. In her evidence she has stated
that not only she was sexually assaulted by the
accused/appellant but an attempt was also made by
the accused/appellant to brand her as insane.
Prosecutrix was also made to give the statement of
her being insane just to secure acquittal. There is
not even an iota of evidence in support of the stand
taken by the accused/appellant regarding his false
implication in the case. The most unfortunate and
deplorable aspect of the case in hand is that
accused is none else but the father in law of the
prosecutrix herself who has posed an indelible scar
on the sacred relationship between father in law and
daughter in law. When after marriage a girl steps in
her matrimonial home, the father-in-law is supposed
to act as father-in-fact and make every effort to
get the heap of hopes cherished by her in her mental
slate realized more than her expectations. If a
father-in-law assumes such a beastly character and
instead of saving the dignity of his own daughter in
law tries to rewrite the history anew putting a
never-washable blot on her psyche, they ought not to
be let loose, rather tightening the noose around his
neck should be the ultimate judicial desirability
for undoing the injustice.
10. Having come across the entire pros and cons of
the matter the only conclusion suitable for the
offenders like appellant herein is the apathy not
sympathy. Accordingly, this Court finds nothing to
interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded
by the trial Court and to blow a life to the appeal.
Appeal being lifeless is dismissed.
Judge