Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2001. Case: Badan and Ors. Vs The State of Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh High Court
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.V. Rajwade, Advocate and For Respondents: Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer |
| Judges | P. Sam Koshy, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 437A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 376, 376(2)(g) |
| Judgement Date | February 15, 2017 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh High Court |
Judgment:
P. Sam Koshy, J.
1. Each of the two Appellants stands convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, as ordered 17.1.2001 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (Surguja), in Sessions Case No. 348 of 1998.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR (Exhibit P-4) was lodged on 18.8.1998 by the Prosecutrix (P.W. 3), alleging that on the previous day i.e. on 17.8.1998 at around 6:30 pm while she was returning home after working in the field en route she came across the Appellants who initially asked her to have sex with her and when she refused then the Appellants is said to have caught hold of her and then have forcefully dropped her on the ground and Appellant No. 1, Badan @ Rambadan, is said to have committed rape upon her and in between when she raised alarm, her Aunt 
, P.W. 4 Rupmati, came to spot and the Appellants is said to have fled from the scene. Prosecutrix is said to have gone home along with P.W. 4 Rupmati and on the next day the FIR was lodged. After the completion of the investigations, the Appellants were taken into custody and the matter was put to trial before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 348 of 1998.
3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and there were no witnesses examined on behalf of the defence. After conclusion of the trial, the Court below vide impugned judgment reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and convicting the Appellants for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years each.
4. It is this judgment of conviction and sentence which is under challenge in the present appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants assailing the impugned judgment submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law and is not sustainable, for the reason that the deposition of the Prosecutrix is not worth relying as there are major discrepancies, contradictions and omissions in the FIR and in the Court statement. He further alleges that the FIR and the statement rendered by the Prosecutrix are entirely different from the statement of her Aunt, P.W. 4 Rupmati, who had reached the spot immediately. It was further contended by the Counsel for the Appellants that the deposition of the Prosecutrix alone would reveal that it is a case of false implication of the Appellants or even if the contents are taken as it is, then it would clearly reflect it to be a case of consent. It was also contended by the Counsel for the Appellant that in the course of examination of the Prosecutrix, the Court itself put certain queries/questions to her and the answers which have been given by her itself falsify the entire case of the prosecution and only on this the Appellants deserve to be acquitted. He further submits that the case of the prosecution does not stand proved medically neither has the forensic report given a positive report which could substantiate the case of the prosecution. It was also contended by the Counsel for the Appellants that the conduct of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial