Chattisgarh High Court
Bandhan Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 September, 2024
1
2024:CGHC:34615
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 406 of 2022
1 - Bandhan Singh S/o Sonsai, Aged About 50 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o
Village Charrapara, Podiuproda, P.S. Bango, District Korba (Chhattisgarh).......
(Details Of Appellant Has Not Mentioned In Impugned Annexure A-1), District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bango
District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
----Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Appellant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi and Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocates.
For the State/Respondent : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, PL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 05.09.2024
1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure A/1), passed in Session Trial No. 30/2017 by which the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora District Korba, (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as 2 follows:-
Convicted Sentenced to
under
Sections
376(2)(p) of the R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.
IPC 1,000/- in default of payment of which, additional R.I. for 2 months 457 of IPC R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.
500/- in default of payment of which, additional R.I. for 1 month 323 of IPC R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.
500/- in default of payment of which, additional R.I. for 1 month
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that a complaint was filed by the complainant alleging therein that husband of the prosecutrix died and the prosecutrix was residing along at village Charrapara, Podiuproda, P.S. Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh and the appellant is son of her brother-in-law and on 19.03.2017 at about 2- 3:00 am in the morning, when daughter of the prosecutrix was gone to carry mahua, then the appellant has informed to her daughter that the prosecutrix was found at near Ghutari and when she reached to the spot, she found that the prosecutrix was naked and lying unconscious near Ghutari. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was admitted in Korba Hospital. The prosecutrix has given statements that on 19.03.2017 at about 03:00 am, the appellant has committed aggravated sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will at her house. On the basis of the complaint made by 3 the complainant, the concerned Police Station Bango has registered the offence punishable under Section 456, 376, 323 and 365 of the IPC. Based upon the said report, FIR bearing crime No. 340/2022 (Ex.P/8). After completion of investigation, final report/charge sheet was filed against appellant before the JMFC, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). Vide order dated 10.01.2022, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(p ), 457 and 323 of IPC.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 9 witnesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witnesses has been examined in his defence.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 10.01.2022 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is aged about 50 years old and the appellant is son of her brother-in-law and due to previous enmity, the complainant has falsely implicated the appellant without any proving of allegation. The learned trial Court relied upon the statement given by PD (PW-2) and PG (PW-4) who are not reliable witnesses. The complainant has made complaint against the appellant without any specific reason based upon the false and baseless allegation. The appellant has not committed any 4 aforesaid offences as alleged by the prosecution against him. He submits that if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, no case is made out against the appellant. As such prosecutrix and her daughter statements are not reliable as there are many contradictions, omissions and development in their statement, which was not considered properly by the learned trial court. From the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the police, Magistrate and before the Court it reflects that they are not reliable witnesses. Further trial Court also ignored the fact that nothing has been found in the medical report of victim. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Thus, the impugned judgment is per se illegal, contrary to the evidence available on record and deserves to be set aside/ quashed.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the act committed by the appellant was extremely disgusting and of serious nature and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the aforesaid offences . As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record.
9. According to the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), at the time of incident, she was alone in the house and her daughter had gone to 5 collect Mahua and the door of her house was locked inside and the accused/appellant was abusing her and opened the door himself and entered inside the house. He hit the prosecutrix near her eye and pressed her throat and pulled out her tongue and twisted it. He committed rape with her. Thereafter, the accused/appellant dragged the prosecutrix near a garden and where she fell unconscious and she regained consciousness in Korba Hospital.
10. The daughter of the prosecutrix P.D. (PW/2) has stated in her court evidence that at the time of the incident, she had gone to collect Mahua at 03:00 am, at that time, the accused came to her and told her that someone had beaten up the prosecutrix and thrown her in a pit near the garden. Then she went and saw that the prosecutrix was in the pit and at that time the prosecutrix was not able to talk, she was unconcious and was only moving her hands and legs. She further stated that when she told about the incident to his daughter and son- in-law, they also saw the prosecutrix in the pit and at that time blood was oozing out of the nose and mouth of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, she further stated that when she went to Bango Police Station and told about the incident, the police came and took her mother to Korba hospital.
11. PG PW-4 and PW6 (who is daughter and son-in-law of PW-2) has also supported the version of (PW-2) and stated that when her mother told her, then they went to the spot and saw that the prosecutrix was lying on the field and she was covered with a shawl.
12. Dr. S. Shrivastava (PW-11) who medically examined the prosecutrix, 6 has found that there was swelling and bruise on the nose and it was painful on touching both sides of nose. There was blood clots on both her nose and there was slight bleeding from the left side of nose. There were scratches marks on her back, buttocks, thighs, both legs, lower part of the feet and both hands on which fresh blood had scabbed. Most of the scratches were on the thighs and back of the hands. Further, Doctor (PW-11) gave medical report (Ex.P/9) and found in the internal examination of the prosecutrix that her hymen was ruptured and skin of the lower part of the vagina was torn which was bleeding and painful on touching. The injuries found in the internal examination can be caused by forceful intercourse and all the injuries were caused within 24 hours.
13. After close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, it is apparent that prosecutrix (PW-1), her daughter (PW2) and Doctor (PW-11) in their evidence have stated in categorical terms that at the time of incident, she was hit on her face and thereafter she was raped forcefully, stripped naked, dragged and thrown into the garden. It was the appellant who did such a crime. The evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be completely credible from the injuries shown in the medical report (Ex.P/9). Nothing favourable to accused/appellant could be elicited in the cross-examination of prosecutrix and other witnesses and, in fact, the prosecutrix stuck to her version that accused/appellant had assaulted her so badly and had committed forceful sexual intercourse. Even otherwise, it is settled position of law that conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of 7 prosecutrix. No corroboration as a matter of law needs to be insisted. The prosecutrix being the victim of crime is required to be treated as an injured witness.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573;, the Supreme Court has observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. Further, the Supreme Court also in the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34, it is observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.
15. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, It is required to be noted that in the present case, the prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution; she has been consistent right from the very beginning; nothing has been specifically pointed out why the sole testimony of the prosecutrix should not be believed. Even after thorough cross-examination, she has stood by what she has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. This Court see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. The conviction of the 8 accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained.
16. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly, the evidence with regard to the depositions made by the prosectrix as well as her daughter and Doctor(PW-11) who have fully supported the statements of the victim that the appellant being the relative of the prosecutrix committed forceful sexual intercourse with her, against her will and without her consent and while doing so he not only assaulted the prosecutrix but also confined her in the pit and also considering that the prosecutrix is aged about 75 years old, this Court is of the opinion that there is no doubt that the accused appellant has committed such offence with the prosecutrix. No case is made out pointing out perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and rightly recorded the conviction. No interference is called for. The appeal thus deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
17. The appellant is in jail. He shall undergo the entire jail sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
18. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti