Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Akash Chandrakar, S/o Shri Chagan Lal Chandrakar, aged about 26 years,

2. Pappu @ Lokesh Chandrakar, S/o Bal Ram Chandrakar, aged about 22 years.

Both resident of Shanker Nagar, Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG)

---- Appellants Vs  State Of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (CG)

06. On the other hand, State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that conviction of the appellants is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. She submits that there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix made on 9.7.2003 wherein she has made specific allegation against the appellants.

07. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

08. PW-1 prosecutrix was first examined before the Court on 27.1.2003 where she has stated that she does not know the accused persons. On the date of incident two boys came to the house of her maternal grand- mother Radhabai and through her she was informed that she is being called by Manish and that both the boys took her on their motorcycle to Mahasamund, however, she does not know those boys. In the house in question she was subjected to rape by those two boys, who had consumed liquor. She has further stated that she came out naked from the said house, went to a nearby house, narrated the entire incident to one old person and then on the way she also met four ladies and one Surendra, whom she narrated the incident and then came to police station along with said Surendra and lodged the FIR. She has stated that the place of occurrence was not shown by her to the police and the map Ex.P/2 was prepared by the police in the police station, which bears her signature. At this stage she was declared hostile by the prosecution. In the cross-examination by the prosecution, she further stated that she was not aware of the names of the accused persons. She has stated that earlier also she had come to the Court twice for her evidence but the same could not be recorded. She has categorically denied the suggestion that she was taken on motorcycle by accused Akash Chandrakar and Pintu and that she never lodged any such report. She has further stated that it is incorrect to say that she was subjected to intercourse by accused Akash Chandrakar and Pappu. In view of above, her cross-examination by the defence counsel remained NIL and therefore, she was discharged on 27.1.2003.

However, subsequently she made an application before the trial Court stating therein that she had made incorrect statement before the Court earlier and therefore, she may be examined again. Hence on 9.7.2003 she was again examined in the Court where she has stated that in her earlier evidence she made incorrect statement and then stated that she knows all the accused persons, on the date of incident accused Pintu and Akash came to the house of her maternal grand- mother Radhabai and told her that they had come to return money of her (prosecutrix) father, however, her father was not there in the house. When she came out of the house, accused Pintu gagged her mouth and then accused Akash and Pintu forcibly made her sit on their motorcycle and took to the house of Akash at Mahasamund where she was first raped by accused Akash and then by Pappu. During the course of intercourse they were also beating her. Thereafter she somehow ran away from the house naked and then met one old person who offered her some cloth to put on and a little ahead she met four ladies also and one watchman who offered her blanket and thereafter along with that watchman she went to police station and lodged the FIR. However, in her cross-examination there appears to be contradictions and omission from her diary statement and the FIR. She has further stated that at the time of commission of the rape she was also being beaten by the accused persons. However, as per her medical report no injury was found on her person.