Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dilip Kumar Kurmi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 October, 2018
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K.M. Joseph
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.405 OF 2013
DILIP KUMAR KURMI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. The accused-appellant who stands convicted under Section 376 IPC and who has undergone the sentenced imposed i.e. RI for seven years seeks to argue the appeal on merits for an acquittal.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. The basis of the conviction of the accused-appellant Signature Not Verified is the evidence of the Digitally signed by POOJA ARORA Date: 2018.10.08 16:56:31 IST prosecutrix Reason: PW-1; her Sister (Revatibai-PW2) aged about 8-9 years and the evidence of PW-3 2 (Jawahar Verma-Sarpanch). All the aforesaid witnesses, according to the prosecution, are eye-witnesses to the crime.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the ocular testimony of PWs1, 2 and 3 is corroborated by the report of medical examination, details of which have been stated by PW-14 (Dr. Smt. Rajshree Deodhar). The report of said examination has also been proved as an exhibit in the case.
5. The learned trial court and the High Court accepted the prosecution version and rejected the evidence of DW-1 (uncle of the accused) through whom the defence has sought to attribute a motive to the prosecutrix for alleging the crime to have been committed by the accused.
6. Having considered the matter, we find no ground to disbelieve any of the three eye 3 witnesses. In this regard, we have taken note of the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant as to why PWs1, 2 and 3 should be disbelieved. It is argued, in this regard, that the said witnesses had testified that the prosecutrix was dragged to the spot where the crime was committed but surprisingly, no injury marks were found in any part of her body including the knee which was exposed while the prosecutrix was allegedly dragged.
7. The medical examination was conducted after four days of the incident and the learned trial Court accepted the explanation of the prosecution and went on to hold that after four days a small abrasion on the knee may not have been noticed. We find that the view taken by the learned trial court to be a possible view. That apart, the report of medical examination which we have perused, conclusively proves the commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC. 4
8. It has also been urged on behalf of the appellant that there is a discrepancy with regard to the date/month of the incident. It is pointed out that whereas the prosecutrix has mentioned that the incident occurred on 10.03.2000, PW-3 had testified that the incident had occurred in the month of February. The aforesaid discrepancy, according to us, does not go to the root of the matter and does not destroy the substratum of the prosecution case. Insofar as PW-1 is concerned, we concur with the view taken by the learned trial court and the High Court, namely, that no motive can be attributed to the prosecutrix to lodge a false case against the accused-appellant.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no fault with the conviction of the accused- appellant and the sentence imposed. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the 5 conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC and the sentence of seven years RI imposed.
.................,CJI.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) ....................,J.
(K.M. JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 4, 2018
6
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.1 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.405 OF 2013 DILIP KUMAR KURMI Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s) Date : 04-10-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Appellant(s) Ms. Hiral Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Tarannum Cheema, Adv. (A.C.) For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA ARORA) (ASHA SONI)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)