MANHARAN DEWANGAN Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.10.2007, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 20/2007. By the impugned judgment, the appellant/accused Manharan Dewangan has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently: - <IMG>JUDGEMENT_235_CGLJ1_2014.jpg</IMG>

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : - The prosecutrix (PW/6) is the niece of the appellant and she was residing with him in his house. On 13.10.2006, at about 7:30 pm, he called the prosecutrix (PW/6) in the bathroom for washing his hands. When the prosecutrix (PW/ 6) came to the bathroom, he caught her, threatened her and committed sexual intercourse with her. He threatened the prosecutrix (PW/6) that if she discloses about the incident to anyone, her life would be in danger. Thereafter, the prosecutrix (PW/6) did not disclose the incident to anyone. On the next morning, he again called the prosecutrix (PW/6) in the bathroom and committed sexual intercourse with her. On the next day, on the occasion of Goverdhan Pooja, he called the prosecutrix (PW/6) in the bathroom at about 8:30 pm, threatened her of life and caught her. At that time, his wife came there and saw the incident. Thereafter, he left the prosecutrix (PW/6). The prosecutrix (PW/6) disclosed the incident to her Aunt i.e. the wife of the appellant. On 08.11.2006, the appellant/accused again threatened the prosecutrix (PW/6) and asked her for sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix (PW/6) fled from the house and went to Village Korguda. On the way, Ishwari Bai and Laxmi Bai met her. Thereafter, she went to her house and narrated the incident to her mother. The prosecutrix (PW/6) made a written report (Ex. P/7) in Police Station, Patan. On the basis of Ex.P/7, First Information Report (Ex. P/8) was recorded in the Police Station and the prosecutrix (PW/6) was sent to District Hospital, Durg for medical examination. Dr. Smt. S.Sawant (PW/4) examined her and gave her report (Ex. P/4) and prepared slide of vaginal swab of prosecutrix (PW/6) and handed it over to the Constable for medical examination and she also advised for X -ray examination for determination of age of the prosecutrix (PW/6). Dr. A.K.Sahu (PW/5) took out X -ray of the prosecutrix (PW/6) and gave his report (Ex. P/6) in which he opined that the age of the prosecutrix (PW/6) was between 15 to 16 years. The appellant was also sent to Government Hospital, Patan for medical examination. Dr.S.K. Sahu (PW -9) examined the appellant and gave his report (Ex. P/13) finding that the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. In further investigation, spot map (Ex. P/3) was prepared by Patwari Lalaram Sinha (PW/3) and another spot map (Ex. P/11) was prepared by the Investigating Officer. The underwear and the birth certificate of the prosecutrix (PW/6) were seized vide Ex. P/10. Vaginal slide of the prosecutrix (PW/6) was seized vide Ex. P/12. Dakhil -Kharij Register (Ex.P/16A) was seized from Assistant Teacher Sitaram Dewangan (PW/12) vide Ex. P/17 and underwear of the appellant was seized vide Ex. P/18. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination vide Ex. P/23.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri S.K.Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent, submits that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the appellant do not warrant any interference by this Court.