RAVISHANKER GABEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these three appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 23.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Sessions Trial No. 130/2006 convicting the accused/appellants Ravishanker Gabel, Ujagar, Ravi Jaiswal, Jagjeevan Gabel and Rameshwar Kalar in Cr. A. 168/2008 under Section 506-B IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/-; convicting accused/appellant Rajkumar in Cr. A. 216/2008 u/s 363, 366, 342 and 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/- and 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000 respectively; and convicting the accused/appellant Shani in Cr. A. No. 191/2008 u/s 363, 366 and 342 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively plus default stipulations, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.11.2004 FIR Ex. P-17 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-10) aged about 20 years, to the effect that she was resident of village Chainpur, police station Kartala, District Korba and on 23.11.2004 she had gone to the house of her sister and brother-in-law Murarilal Rathore (PW-13) at village Sarkhon, police station Janjgir. It is alleged that on 26.11.2004 at about 8.30 p. m. when she came out of the house to answer the call of nature, she was caught hold of by accused/appellants Rajkumar and Shani who after gagging her mouth with a piece of cloth, forcibly took her on their motorcycle which was being driven by accused/appellant Shani, to a secluded house and locked her in a room. Accused/appellant Rajkumar removed her clothes with an intention to commit rape on her and when she protested the same, he threatened her of being killed and on account of fear she kept quiet. It is also alleged that while accused/appellant was committing sexual intercourse with her, accused/appellant Shani was standing there only. At about 2.30 a. m. accused Rajkumar again committed rape on her by putting under threat in the name of her mother and then after locking her up in a room both of them left the spot. Allegedly, while leaving the spot they had threatened her saying that she would go to her village with a particular man to be sent by them as he had already done what he wanted. On 27.11.2004 at abut 9 p. m. accused/appellant Ravi Jaiswal came there and after opening the door while he was taking her to village Chainpur, on the way accused/appellants Ravishanker Gabel, Ujagar Gabel, Jagjeevan Gabel and Rameshwar Jaiswal met them and at that time also they had threatened her to directly go to her house. It is further alleged that as she did not want to go to her house, they had again threatened her that in that case she would be hanged by them. Thereafter, accused Ravi Jaiswal dropped her at home where she disclosed the incident to her mother, father, brother and brother-in-law and then the report was lodged. Based on this FIR, offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 342 IPC were registered against the accused/appellants Rajkumar and Shani. Prosecutrix was medically examined on 2.12.2004 vide Ex. P-5 by Dr. Nandini Chandravanshi (PW-4). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police on 2.7.2005 for the same sections plus under Section 34 IPC. On 23.11.2007 an order was passed by the Court below for inclusion of Ravishanker Gabel, Ujagar, Ravi Jaiswal, Jagjeevan Gabel and Rameshwar as accused for the offence under Section 506-B IPC. Accordingly, they were also made accused and charge was framed against them under the said Section on 19.4.2007.

(3.) In support of its case, prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.