{"id":76857,"date":"2009-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-25T21:06:23","modified_gmt":"2015-09-25T15:36:23","slug":"2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR          \n\n Criminal Appeal No 858 of  2004\n\n 1 Shivaram\n\n\n  2 Gyani Ram \n                                                 ...Petitioners\n\n                          Versus\n\n State of Chhattisgarh\n                                                ...Respondents\n\n\n! M r C Jayant Kumar Rao counsel for the appellant No 1 M r N K Mehta counsel for the appellant No 2\n\n^ M r Rakesh Jha Deputy Govt Advocate for the State\n\n CORAM: Honble Shri R N Chandrakar J   \n\n Dated: 19\/11\/2009\n\n: Judgement \n\n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       Delivered on this  19th  day of November 2009<\/p>\n
  Criminal appeal Us 374 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973<\/p>\n
  1.   The appellants have preferred this appeal against the<\/p>\n
     judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-9-<\/p>\n
     2004  passed by the Special Judge, Ambikapur, District<\/p>\n
     Sarguja  In  Special  Case No.  80\/2002,  whereby  the<\/p>\n
     accused\/appellants have been convicted under Section 376<\/p>\n
     (2) (g) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten<\/p>\n
     years and to pay fine of Rs.500\/- each, in default  of<\/p>\n
     payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for three months.<\/p>\n
2.   The prosecution case as set out in the First
\nInformation Report (FIR) is that the prosecutrix namely
\nKalawati was residing along with her mother in village
\nKotagahana  in  the  house of   one Jugeshwar Choubey.
\nOn 3-9-2002 she went to the house of Bramhdeo @ Lilu Yadav
\n(PW\/8) to obtain iron press for ironing her clothes.  At
\nthe same time, at about 2.00 p.m., the appellants along
\nwith another person came in a Marshal Jeep and seeing her,
\nstopped the jeep in front of the house of Bramhdeo @ Lilu
\nYadav (PW\/8).    The accused\/appellants forcibly dragged
\nthe prosecutrix in the jeep and she cried for help. Hearing
\nher outcry when Bramhdeo @ Lilu Yadav (PW\/8) came out of
\nhis house,   the accused\/appellants started the jeep and
\ntook the prosecutrix to  Behrakhand forest where  appellant
\nNo.1 Shivaram  forcibly got her down from the jeep and
\ncommitted rape on her.  The prosecutrix made outcry and
\nstarted weeping, hearing which Budhan Korwa, Lilu @
\nBhramhdeo and her mother namely Urmila came there.   After
\nthe incident the appellants fled away from the spot in the
\nsaid jeep.   On the same day i.e., on 3-9-2002 at 4.30 p.m.
\nthe prosecutrix lodged the FIR  (Ex.P\/4) in Police Station,
\nRajpur, where the offence was registered against the
\nappellants and the matter was investigated.\n<\/p>\n
  3.     During  investigation,  the  prosecutrix  and  the<\/p>\n
     appellant No.1 Shivaram were sent for medical examination<\/p>\n
     vide  Ex.P\/8  and  Ex.P\/3 respectively  to  Government<\/p>\n
     Hospitals, Rajpur and  Ambikapur  where Doctors examined<\/p>\n
     both of them and gave their reports vide Ex.P\/4 & P\/2.<\/p>\n
     Investigating Officer seized the clothes of  prosecutrix<\/p>\n
     vide Ex.P\/3, broken bangles, one empty sachet of Pan-Parag<\/p>\n
     etc.,  from the spot vide Ex.P\/10, the offending vehicle<\/p>\n
     from Noharsai vide Ex.P\/1 and prepared the spot map vide<\/p>\n
     Ex.P\/11.  The clothes of the prosecutrix were sent to the<\/p>\n
     Doctor for medical examination vide Ex.P\/12.<\/p>\n
4.    After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was
\nfiled in the competent court who in turn, committed the
\ncase to the trial Court.   Learned trial Court framed the
\ncharge under Section 376 (2) (g) of the IPC read with
\nSection 3 (2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\nTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  against the
\nappellants.  The appellants abjured the guilt.\n<\/p>\n
  5.     The  prosecution, in order to establish the charge<\/p>\n
     against   the  appellants,  examined  nine  witnesses.<\/p>\n
     Thereafter, the statements of the accused\/appellants were<\/p>\n
     recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, in which they<\/p>\n
     denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded<\/p>\n
     their innocence and false implication.  The appellants<\/p>\n
     examined  Sukhram (DW\/1) and Budhanram (DW\/2)  in their <\/p>\n
     defence.\n<\/p>\n
  6.   After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on<\/p>\n
     evaluation of the evidence available on record, the trial<\/p>\n
     Court  convicted and sentenced the appellants as noted<\/p>\n
     above.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit
\nthat the judgment of the trial Court is not only perverse,
\nbad and contrary to law but also is manifestly wrong,
\nleading to a grave miscarriage of justice.  The trial Court
\nfailed to appreciate and scrutinize judicially the facts
\nand circumstances of the case.  In view of the evidence and
\nmaterial available on record, there is no iota of evidence
\nagainst appellant No.2 to connect with this so-called gang
\nrape.  As a matter of fact, this case does not fall within
\nthe ambit of Section 376 (2) (g) of the IPC.  The role of
\nthe appellant No.2 has not been disclosed in the case.  In
\nthis connection, the trial Court has wrongly held that the
\nappellant No.2 was playing an active role in the commitment
\nof rape by appellant No.1 with the prosecutrix.  The trial
\nCourt has arbitrarily and blindly believed the
\nuncorroborated statement of PW-8 Lilu alias Bramhdeo whose
\nconduct is doubtful.    Learned counsel further submit that
\nthe prosecutrix stated in para 20 of her deposition that
\nshe had never gone to the house of Bramhdeo (PW\/8)  which
\ncreates a great suspicion that she  tried to hide the real
\nfact, therefore, her testimony appears to be unreliable and
\nuntrustworthy.  Learned counsel lastly submit that
\nconsidering the entire facts, the judgment of conviction
\nand order of sentence be set aside and the appellants be
\nacquitted of the charge.  Learned counsel in support of
\ntheir contentions,   placed  reliance in  Pardeep Kumar vs.
\nUnion  Administration, Chandigarh,<\/a> 2006 STPL (LE) 37389 SC.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondent\/State in support of the impugned judgment of the
\nlower Court submits that the accused\/appellants were
\nrightly convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) of the IPC as
\nit was amply proved by the prosecution that both the
\nappellants acted in concert to commit rape on the
\nprosecutrix and in furtherance of the common intention,
\nrape was committed by appellant No.1.\n<\/p>\n
9.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused
\nthe record of the trial Court and also the impugned
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
10.  In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by
\nlearned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to
\nextract the relevant provision of Section 376 of the IPC
\nwhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
        376. Punishment for rape.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (2) Whoever,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (g)  commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous
\n               imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten
\n               years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to
\n               fine:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Provided ……….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Explanation  1.-Where a woman  is  raped  by
\n        one or more in a group of persons acting  in
\n        furtherance of their common intention,  each
\n        of  the  persons  shall be  deemed  to  have
\n        committed  gang rape within the  meaning  of
\n        this sub-section”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  11.   In  view  of the aforesaid provision and  on  going<\/p>\n
     through the record of the trial Court, the evidence of the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix Kalawati (PW\/5) and Brahmdeo @ Lilu  Yadav<\/p>\n
     (PW\/8) are substantial  to analyze the factual matrix of<\/p>\n
     the case with regard to the conduct and role played by the<\/p>\n
     appellants in commission of the offence.<\/p>\n
12.  PW\/5 Kalawati, prosecutrix stated in her deposition
\nthat on the date of incident when she went to the house of
\nBrahmdeo @ Lilu Yadav (PW\/8) to obtain iron press for
\nironing her clothes,  the appellants accompanied by another
\nperson came there in a Marshal Jeep and forcibly  dragged
\nher in the  Jeep which was  driven by the appellant No.2.
\nShe was taken to Berhakhand forest where appellant No.1
\ndragged her from the jeep and throwing her on the ground,
\ncommitted rape on her. She further deposed that despite her
\nresistance and outcry, the appellant No.1 did not set her
\nfree.  The appellant No.1 threatened the prosecutrix to
\nkill by showing sword if she did not yield to his wish.
\nShe also stated that at the time of committing the offence
\nby appellant No.1, the appellant No.2 left the place of
\noccurrence with the offending vehicle to his house where
\nher mother asked him about her whereabouts to which the
\nappellant No.2 denied.  After the incident, her mother,
\nBrahmdeo (PW\/8) and other persons came to the spot.  The
\nappellant No.2 also came there again  with the offending
\nvehicle  in which he took away the appellant No.1 from the
\nspot. Thereafter, she lodged the report of the incident
\nvide Ex\/P\/4 against the appellants in Police Station
\nRajpur.   Thereafter, she was sent to the Government
\nHospital, Rajpur, for medical examination.  Her clothes
\nwere seized vide Ex.P\/3, her broken bangles were seized
\nfrom the spot vide Ex.P\/10 and spot map was prepared vide
\nEx.P\/11 by the Police.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The prosecutrix was cross examined at length in which
\nshe denied all most all the suggestions given by the
\ndefence and remained consistent to her statement.    She
\nspecifically denied the suggestion that she herself
\naccompanied the appellants in the Jeep and did not make any
\noutcry.  She also denied the suggestion that she herself
\nalighted from the jeep and stated that she was dragged from
\nthe jeep by appellant No.1.  She specifically admitted that
\nwhen she was made to sit in the Jeep, she made outcry and
\nhearing the same  Bramhdeo @ Lilu Yadav came out from the
\nhouse.  Thus, on anxious evaluation of her deposition, it
\nis evident that the defence was unable to elicit any
\nsubstantial contradictions, omissions or improvements by
\nwhich her testimony can be held unreliable or
\nuntrustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
  14.  The testimony of the prosecutrix is also corroborated<\/p>\n
     by  Brahmdeo  (PW\/8) who categorically stated  in  his<\/p>\n
     deposition that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix<\/p>\n
     came to his house for obtaining iron press, at that time,<\/p>\n
     he  was  taking his lunch.  Hearing the outcry of  the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix, when he came out from the house, he saw that<\/p>\n
     the appellants were forcibly taking the prosecutrix in a<\/p>\n
     marshal jeep.  Thereafter, he went to the mother of the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix and narrated the fact. After some time, the<\/p>\n
     jeep was found standing near the house of appellant No.2.<\/p>\n
     The mother of the prosecutrix went there and the appellants<\/p>\n
     took the jeep towards forest.  The appellant No.2 blew horn<\/p>\n
     and the appellant No.1 rushed to the jeep. Thereafter the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix  came out from the forest by  weeping  and<\/p>\n
     narrated the incident to him and her mother in presence of<\/p>\n
     some other persons of the village.  Thereafter, the report<\/p>\n
     of the incident was lodged in Police Station, Rajpur.  He<\/p>\n
     admitted the spot map (Ex.P\/11), seizure of broken bangles<\/p>\n
     and empty sachet of Pan-Parag from the spot vide Ex.P\/10 as<\/p>\n
     also the clothes of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P\/3. In his<\/p>\n
     cross examination this witness remained consistent and<\/p>\n
     unrebutted to the fact that when he came out from the house<\/p>\n
     hearing the outcry of the prosecutrix, he saw that the<\/p>\n
     appellants were forcibly taking away the prosecutrix in a<\/p>\n
     marshal jeep.  He categorically stated that he gave this<\/p>\n
     information to the mother of the prosecutrix and saw the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix at the place of incident where she was weeping.<\/p>\n
     He denied the suggestion that the incident was not narrated<\/p>\n
     by the prosecutrix in his presence.  Thus, the version of<\/p>\n
     this witness inspires confidence and finds corroboration<\/p>\n
     with the testimony of the prosecutrix despite there being<\/p>\n
     some discrepancies not amounting to material contradiction.<\/p>\n
  15.    Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Lekh<\/p>\n
     Raj (2000)1 SCC 247  on the aspect of discrepancy observed<\/p>\n
     as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “Discrepancy     has     to      be
\n             distinguished  from  contradiction.\n<\/p>\n
             Whereas   contradiction   in    the
\n             statement of the witness  is  fatal
\n             for the case, minor discrepancy  or
\n             variance in evidence will not  make
\n             the  prosecution’s  case  doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
             The  normal  course  of  the  human
\n             conduct   would   be   that   while
\n             narrating  a  particular   incident
\n             there      may     occur      minor
\n             discrepancies,  such  discrepancies
\n             in law may render credential to the
\n             depositions. Parrot-like statements
\n             are  disfavoured by the courts.  In
\n             order  to  ascertain as to  whether
\n             the  discrepancy  pointed  out  was
\n             minor  or  not or the same amounted
\n             to    contradiction,   regard    is
\n             required   to   be   had   to   the
\n             circumstances  of   the   case   by
\n             keeping  in view the social  status
\n             of the witnesses and environment in
\n             which  such witness was making  the
\n             statement”\n<\/p>\n
  16.   Learned counsel for the appellants pointing towards<\/p>\n
     the statement made by the prosecutrix in para 20 of her<\/p>\n
     deposition  tried  to discredit the testimony  of  the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix and submitted that she never went to the house<\/p>\n
     of Brahmdeo (PW\/8). The extract of  para 20 reads  as “eSa<\/p>\n
     czEgnso ds ?kj dHkh ugha x;h]] blfy;s ml fnu tc ek’kZy thi<\/p>\n
     mlds ?kj ds lkeus vk;h rks eSa mlds ?kj ugha ?kqlh” On<\/p>\n
     scrutiny, the meaning of para 20  is found  that   the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix never visited the house of Brahmdeo (PW\/8)<\/p>\n
     before the incident, therefore, on the date of incident<\/p>\n
     also when the Marshal Jeep came in front of the house of<\/p>\n
     Brahmdeo, she did not enter  his house.  The statement of<\/p>\n
     the  prosecutrix is to be viewed in the context of the<\/p>\n
     statement of Brahmdeo who categorically stated in para 27<\/p>\n
     to 29 of his deposition that  it was for the first time<\/p>\n
     when the prosecutrix came to his house for obtaining iron<\/p>\n
     press on the date of incident  and  was standing out of the<\/p>\n
     house. Thus, there is no force in the contention of learned<\/p>\n
     counsel for the appellants and it appears that the gist of<\/p>\n
     the  deposition  of the prosecutrix has  wrongly  been<\/p>\n
     interpreted only with a view to discredit the testimony of<\/p>\n
     the prosecutrix.  The interpretation\/translation of any<\/p>\n
     sentence or paragraph should be based on its full context.<\/p>\n
     It would not be apposite to pick up and interpret only half<\/p>\n
     of the sentence which goes in favour of the appellants,<\/p>\n
     leaving the other portion untouched.\n<\/p>\n
  17.   It  is evident that the forcible intercourse on the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix is also established by the evidence of Doctor<\/p>\n
     Smt. Kiran Bhajgawali (PW\/4) who examined the prosecutrix<\/p>\n
     on 4-9-2002. She found multiple abrasion marks on hips and<\/p>\n
     waists of the prosecutrix as also a small tear at 6′ O<\/p>\n
     clock position  in her hymen. On examination by finger, the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix felt pain and tenderness.  The doctor gave her<\/p>\n
     report vide Ex.P\/4 and opined that the recent intercourse<\/p>\n
     was performed on her and the injuries were caused within 12<\/p>\n
     to  24  hours by hard and blunt object.  In her  cross<\/p>\n
     examination, the Doctor Smt. Kiran Bhagwali denied the<\/p>\n
     suggestion that the hymen of the prosecutrix was old torn<\/p>\n
     and she was accustomed to sexual intercourse.    Further,<\/p>\n
     appellant No.1 was examined by Doctor B.S. Sangar (PW\/2) <\/p>\n
     vide Ex.P\/2 who found him to be potent.  Thus, it cannot be<\/p>\n
     ruled out that the forcible intercourse was not performed<\/p>\n
     by the appellant No.1 with the prosecutrix.  The clothes of<\/p>\n
     the prosecutrix were advised to send for chemical analysis<\/p>\n
     by the Doctor Smt. Kiran Bhajgawali (PW\/4) but the FSL<\/p>\n
     report is not available on record.  It is made clear that<\/p>\n
     in view of the consistent and credible evidence of the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix which is corroborated by Brahmdeo (PW\/8), it<\/p>\n
     need not be further corroborated by any medical evidence.<\/p>\n
     Apart from this, injuries were found on the body of the<\/p>\n
     prosecutrix which goes to show the only fact that she was<\/p>\n
     forcibly raped against her will.\n<\/p>\n
  18.  Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Sri Narayan<\/p>\n
     Saha and another vs. State of Tripura  reported in  (2004)<\/p>\n
     7 SCC 775  on the aspect of corroboration observed  as<\/p>\n
     under.\n<\/p>\n
                 “The prosecutrix of the sex offence
\n               cannot   be   put  on  a   par   with
\n               accomplice.  She is in fact, a victim
\n               of  the  crime and her evidence  must
\n               receive   the  same  weight   as   is
\n               attached  to an injured witness.   It
\n               can      be      accepted     without
\n               corroboration, if the court,  keeping
\n               in  mind that it is dealing with  the
\n               evidence   of   a   person   who   is
\n               interested  in  the  outcome  of  the
\n               charge  leveled by her, is  satisfied
\n               that it can act on her evidence”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  19.   Further, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of<\/p>\n
     State of M.P. vs. Dayal Sahu,<\/a>  reported in 2005 AIR SCW<\/p>\n
     4839,  observed  as under:\n<\/p>\n
                 “Once  the statement of prosecutrix
\n               inspires  confidence and accepted  by
\n               the courts as such, conviction can be
\n               passed  only on the solitary evidence
\n               of    the    prosecutrix    and    no
\n               corroboration   would   be   required
\n               unless  there are compelling  reasons
\n               which  necessitate  the  courts   for
\n               corroboration   of   her   statement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Corroboration  of  testimony  of  the
\n               prosecutrix   as  a   condition   for
\n               judicial    reliance   is    not    a
\n               requirement of law, but a guidance of
\n               prudence  under the given  facts  and
\n               circumstances”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  20.   So far as the involvement of the appellant No.2  in<\/p>\n
     crime  in question is concerned, it is clear from  the<\/p>\n
     evidence of the prosecutrix (PW\/5) and Brahmdeo (PW\/8) that<\/p>\n
     he was present with the appellant No.1 right from beginning<\/p>\n
     to  end.  It is evident that the offending vehicle was<\/p>\n
     driven by appellant No.2 in which the prosecutrix  was<\/p>\n
     boarded by appellant No.1 and taken away to the forest<\/p>\n
     where the prosecutrix was raped by appellant No.1.  It is<\/p>\n
     also evident that during commission of offence by appellant<\/p>\n
     No.1,   the jeep was brought by appellant No.2 to his house<\/p>\n
     where  he met the mother of the prosecutrix and stated<\/p>\n
     nothing about whereabouts of her daughter.  Thereafter, he<\/p>\n
     again went to the place of occurrence with the offending<\/p>\n
     vehicle and took away the appellant No.1 after commission<\/p>\n
     of the offence.  Thus, the conduct of the appellant No.2<\/p>\n
     goes  to  show  that  he had the common  intention  to<\/p>\n
     participate in the crime and acted in furtherance of that<\/p>\n
     common intention just to facilitate the appellant No.1 in<\/p>\n
     commission of the crime in question with the prosecutrix.<\/p>\n
  21.  Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of<\/p>\n
     Haryana (2003) 2 SCC 143 on the aspect of common intention<\/p>\n
     observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “In  order to establish an  offence
\n             under  Section 376(2)(g) IPC,  read
\n             with  Explanation  I  thereto,  the
\n             prosecution must adduce evidence to
\n             indicate that more than one accused
\n             had acted in concert and in such an
\n             event,  if  rape had been committed
\n             by  even one, all the accused  will
\n             be  guilty irrespective of the fact
\n             that  she had been raped by one  or
\n             more   of  them  and  it   is   not
\n             necessary  for  the prosecution  to
\n             adduce evidence of a completed  act
\n             of rape by each one of the accused.
\n             In   other  words,  this  provision
\n             embodies   a  principle  of   joint
\n             liability and the essence  of  that
\n             liability   is  the  existence   of
\n             common   intention;   that   common
\n             intention presupposes prior concert
\n             which  may be determined  from  the
\n             conduct   of   offenders   revealed
\n             during the course of action and  it
\n             could arise and be formed suddenly,
\n             but,  there  must  be  meeting   of
\n             minds. It is not enough to have the
\n             same  intention  independently   of
\n             each  of  the  offenders.  In  such
\n             cases,   there  must  be   criminal
\n             sharing   marking  out  a   certain
\n             measure   of   jointness   in   the
\n             commission of offence”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  22.  Further, Hon’ble the Supreme Court  in Priya Patel v.<\/p>\n
     State of M.P.,<\/a>(2006) 6 SCC 263  observed as under:<\/p>\n
                “By  operation  of  the  deeming
\n             provision,  a person  who  has  not
\n             actually  committed rape is  deemed
\n             to have committed rape even if only
\n             one of the group in furtherance  of
\n             the  common intention has committed
\n             rape.  “Common intention” is  dealt
\n             with in Section 34 IPC and provides
\n             that when a criminal act is done by
\n             several  persons in furtherance  of
\n             the  common intention of all,  each
\n             of  such persons is liable for that
\n             act in the same manner as if it was
\n             done    by   him   alone.   “Common
\n             intention”   denotes   action    in
\n             concert  and necessarily postulates
\n             a   pre-arranged  plan,   a   prior
\n             meeting of minds and an element  of
\n             participation in action.  The  acts
\n             may   be  different  and  vary   in
\n             character, but must be actuated  by
\n             the same common intention, which is
\n             different  from the same  intention
\n             or  similar intention. The sine qua
\n             non for bringing in application  of
\n             Section 34 IPC is that the act must
\n             be   done  in  furtherance  of  the
\n             common  intention to do a  criminal
\n             act. The expression “in furtherance
\n             of   their  common  intention”   as
\n             appearing  in  the  Explanation  to
\n             Section  376(2)  relates   to   the
\n             intention to commit rape”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  23.    It  is pertinent to mention here that the case law<\/p>\n
     cited by the counsel for the appellants is not applicable<\/p>\n
     to  the  facts  of the present case as the  facts  are<\/p>\n
     distinguishable  and  the same was  a  case  of  clear<\/p>\n
     exoneration  of the appellant and the prosecutrix  had<\/p>\n
     changed her version before the court from time to time but<\/p>\n
     in the present case the prosecutrix remained consistent to<\/p>\n
     her version  which is  duly corroborated by Brahmdeo (PW\/8)<\/p>\n
     though not required.\n<\/p>\n
24.  Taking into consideration over all evidence available
\non record and applying the well settled principles of law
\nlaid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the
\naforementioned judgments, I am of the considered opinion
\nthat the judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from
\nany illegality, infirmity, or irregularity warranting
\ninterference in appeal.  The court below has rightly placed
\nreliance on the statement of the witnesses,   specifically
\non the statement of prosecutrix which is duly corroborated
\nby Brahmdeo (PW\/8) while convicting and sentencing the
\naccused\/appellants as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
25.  Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves
\nto be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court 2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No 858 of 2004 1 Shivaram 2 Gyani Ram …Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh …Respondents ! M r C Jayant Kumar Rao counsel for the appellant No 1 M r N K Mehta […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76857","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-25T15:36:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-25T15:36:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3402,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009\",\"name\":\"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-25T15:36:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-25T15:36:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-25T15:36:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009"},"wordCount":3402,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009","name":"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-25T15:36:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-gyani-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-19-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2 Gyani Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76857","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76857"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76857\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76857"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76857"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76857"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}