POT RAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 25.11.2013 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, in S.T. No.63/2013 convicting the accused/appellants under Sections 376 (D) and 450 IPC & sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 500/-, plus default stipulation respectively, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, on 19.02013 written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW/1) alleging in it that she is resident of village Chorbhatti, P.S. Sarsiwa, District Baloda Bazar, her husband works as labourer and comes to the house after interval of 10-15 days, she has three issues aged 5 year, 4 year and 2 year and that she is residing with her maternal grand father-in-law. She has further alleged that on 18.02013 at about 8.00 PM when she was in her house which was not bolted from inside, accused/appellant Potram Sahu entered the room whereas accused/appellant Lekhram was standing near the door. Accused/appellant Potram, against her wishes, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and, thereafter accused/appellant Lekhram took his turn. As she got scared, she did not disclose the incident to anyone, however, upon seeing the accused persons her daughter Pushpa (not examined) raised cries and upon hearing the same, her maternal grand father-in-law reached there and saw the accused persons fleeing from the spot. She states that though she has disclosed the incident to her maternal grand father-in-law but on account of fear she did not disclose the same to others. On the next morning i.e. on 19.02013 at about 8.00 AM, she made a call to her husband from the cell phone of one Acchelal Sahu informing him about the incident and asked him to come home immediately. On the same day at 100 in the afternoon her husband reached the house whom she narrated the entire incident and after consulting with family members, a decision was taken to lodge the report, and accordingly she lodged the report. Based on this written report, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered on 19.02013 at 6.30 PM under Sections 450 and 376 (2) (g) of IPC against the accused/appellants. The prosecutrix was medically examined vide Ex.P/20 on 21.02013 by Dr. (Mrs.) Pramila Toppo (PW/8) noticing following injuries/symptoms:-

(3.) Accused persons were also medically examined by Dr. Dindayal Sahu (PW/5) on 21.02.2013 vide Ex.P/16 and P/17 who found them capable of performing sexual intercourse. In the incident, underwear and petticoat of the prosecutrix, vaginal slides, and underwear of the accused persons were subjected to chemical examination, however, there is no FSL report in that respect. It is relevant to note here that as per the prosecutrix, she was under menstruation at the time of commission of offence. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Sections 450 and 376 (2) (g) IPC and thereafter, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 450 and 376 (D) of IPC against them.