JAICHAND Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 17/12/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No.69 of 2013, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_82_LAWS(CHH)2_2022_1.html</FRM> The sentences are directed to run concurrently

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix (PW4) is real daughter of the Appellant. At the time of incident, she was aged about 16 years. As per the entries of Kotwari Register (Ex.P8), her date of birth is 12/12/1997. The Appellant, his wife Sohadra (PW2), their daughter/prosecutrix (PW4) and their other two children went to Village Shergaon for employment and all they lived there together. On 20/3/2013, Sohadra (PW2) informed her elder sister Asha (PW1) that the prosecutrix (PW4) had fallen ill. On being asked by Sohadra (PW2), Asha (PW1) took the prosecutrix (PW4) and her younger sister and brother along with her to Village Patsivni. At Village Patsivni, the prosecutrix (PW4) was living silent. On being inquired by Asha (PW1), on 7/4/2013, the prosecutrix (PW4) informed her that the Appellant had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her at Village Shergaon in the midnight of 17/3/2013 and he had also threatened her of life. Due to fear, she did not disclose the incident to anyone at that time. Asha (PW1) called the Appellant and Sohadra (PW2) to Village Patsivni. On their arrival there, Asha (PW1) informed them about the incident. Thereafter, the Appellant returned. The matter was reported by Asha (PW1) vide First Information Report (Ex.P1). The prosecutrix (PW4) was medically examined by Dr. Mrs. B. Bara (PW10). Her report is Ex.P21 in which she found that hymen of the prosecutrix was old ruptured, but her vagina was admitting two fingers tightly. The doctor opined that sexual intercourse was done with the prosecutrix. Statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. The Trial Court framed charges against him.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. In examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness was examined in his defence.