ANIL KUJUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are decided together.

(2.) The appeals preferred under Sec. 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are directed against the common judgment dtd. 26/10/2018 passed in Session Case No.98/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), wherein the Appellants have been convicted as under:-

(3.) In the present case, Appellants Anil Kujur and Anita Renu Kujur are brother and sister and Smt. Ishwati Kujur is their mother. Prosecutrix (PW-1) is a major lady and at the time of incident, she was aged about 24-25 years. According to the case of prosecution, in the year 2009, the victim was resided in a rented house of one Laxman Soni at Namnakala, Ambikapur (C.G.) along with her friend Avita Kachhap. After some time, Avita left the rented house and started residing separately at hostel but, the victim and Avita used to meet with each other. Raju is brother of Avita who was also residing in a separate rented house at Ambikapur. Appellant Anil Kujur was resided next to Raju's Room. Once Avita along with the victim went to meet Raju, accused Anil also came their and got acquainted with the victim. Further case of prosecution is that Anil being well acquainted with the victim, both of them have shared their mobile numbers and started talking on the phone. Anil used to tell her that he wanted to marry her, but the victim at that time refused to marry him, however, she informed her family members about the proposal of Anil. Thereafter, Anil often visited the room of the victim which is situated at Namanakala, Ambikapur, at that time, Anil was residing at village Kusmi and was working as Patwari. It is alleged that on the first time in March 2011, he took the victim to his room and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext that their marriage is fixed. Further case of the prosecution is that even thereafter, on the pretext of marriage, Anil had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on various occasions due to which, she became pregnant in the month of September 2012. When the Appellants came to know about pregnancy, they abused the victim and told her to abort. When she was six months pregnant, the Appellants Anita Renu Kujur and Smt. Ishwati Kujur took her to Arogya Niketan Hospital Ambikapur, which is owned by Dr. Kiran Agarwal, allegedly, they had admitted her and aborted her child. The victim remained admitted in the hospital from 11/4/2013 to 13/4/2013. The delivery took place on 13/4/2013 and a live baby boy was born but, he died after 6-7 hours of delivery. When Appellant Anil Kujur refused to marry the prosecutrix, she lodged a complaint against the Appellants at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur. A settlement was also entered into between the two parties on 26/6/2013, at that time Appellant Anil Kujur promised the prosecutrix that he would marry her. When Anil did not marry her, she lodged the FIR (Ex P-17). The medical examination (Ex. P-4) of the prosecutrix was done by Dr. Shashikala Tirki (PW-6). The statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the Appellant Anil under Sec. 376(1), 323, 506-B and 315 of the Indian Penal Code and Charges were framed against Appellants Anita Renu Kujur and Ishwati Kujur under Sec. 315 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to implicate the Appellants in the offense under consideration, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The statements of the Appellants were also recorded under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein, they have pleaded their innocence and false accusation, however, none of the defense witnesses were examined by them.