NANIRAM S/O BOGARAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 22/12/2012 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur whereby and whereunder the learned trial Judge after holding the appellant guilty for committing rape with the prosecutrix (PW-3) (name not mentioned) after wrongfully confining her and also after giving threat to take life, convicted him under (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, to pay fine of Rs.100.00, Rs.100.00 and Rs.5000.00, in default of payment of fine to further udergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month, 1 month and 6 months, without any direction that the substantive jail sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW-3) on 23-05- 2011 at about 12.30 p.m. went to purchase biscuit in shop of one Chhotu in the village. As the shop was close, she was returning back, the accused/appellant met her and forcibly took her in an emplty room behind Chhotu's shop and after pressing her mouth committed forcible sexual intercourse. Child witness Shivcharan (PW-4) witnessed the incident for taking the prosecutrix forcibly by the accused/appellant, he immediately went to the mother of the prosecutrix and thereafter mother of the prosecutrix Lakhami (PW-5) reached to the spot. The accused/appellant on seeing Lakhami (PW-5) on the spot ran away. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to the police station where she loded the FIR (Ex.-P/3). She was sent for medical examination. Doctor Manisha Goyal (PW-1) conducted the MLC and noticed swelling of upper lip, opined that no definite opinion of rape can be given, vagina admitting one finger tightly swelling present. The prosecutrix was also referred for ossification test. Doctor Govind Singh (PW-6) after ossification test opined that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age and below 19 years of age. He had given his report Ex.-P/16. During investigation, the accused was also arrested, he was medically examined, noticed as capable to commit sexual intercourse. The statement of the witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code').