SURESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7-12-2009 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, District Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2009 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 450, 506 (b) & 376 (1) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and RI for one year and and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.

(2.) As per prosecution case, on 2-8-2009 at about 10.00 pm at night, prosecutrix came out from her house to wash her hands before serving the meals to her husband. The accused was sitting near her house and teased the prosecutrix and when she returned inside the house, appellant followed her to which the prosecutrix complained to the people of the locality and they stopped the appellant from harassing her, but the appellant did not heed their words. It is alleged that when she returned to her house the appellant also entered into her house and asked her husband to take meals outside the house. Looking to the aggressive attitude of the appellant, husband of the prosecutrix came out of the house and thereafter accused forcibly closed the door of the house and committed rape on her. The matter was reported and investigated. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under: i. The story put-forth by the prosecution is improbable because husband of the prosecutrix was inside the house and he did not dare to intervene in the matter and tried to rescue his wife, therefore, finding of the trial court is not sustainable. ii. Conduct of the prosecutrix is suspicious as she did not inform about the incident to neighbors and did not resist during the course of the incident. iii. No injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix, therefore, the story as alleged by the prosecutrix is under suspicion. iv. The trial Court has not evaluated the evidence in its true perspective and same is not liable to be sustained.