Criminal Appeal No. 2151 of 2000. Case: Raghunath Singh Vs State of M.P.. Chhattisgarh High Court

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 2151 of 2000
CounselFor Appellant: Kiran Jain, Advocate and For Respondents: Anupam Dubey, Deputy Advocate General and Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer
JudgesRajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 313, 437A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 363, 366, 376
Judgement DateMarch 03, 2017
CourtChhattisgarh High Court


Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

  1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 3.7.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, convicting the Appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 500/-, rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 500/- and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with default stipulations.

  2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that prosecutrix (P.W. 2) left her house on 27.3.1999 for bringing water but she did not return. After some search, a missing report was lodged by Ramrekha (P.W. 1) in Police Station Manendragarh. Search of the prosecutrix was conducted and she was recovered from the company of the Appellant on 6.4.1999 vide Exhibit P/12. On the same day, on the basis of enquiry conducted on missing report, First Information Report (Exhibit P/11) was lodged in the Police Station Manendragarh registering offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

  3. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) N. Yadav Rohan (P.W. 9) and she submitted her report vide Exhibit P/7. Slides prepared during examination were seized vide Exhibit P/2. Clothes of the prosecutrix suspected of having stains of sperms were seized vide Exhibit P/3. Accused was also medically examined vide Exhibit P/4 by Dr. R.S. Bhojak (P.W. 5). Undergarments of the Appellant were preserved and handed over to the police for chemical examination. Petticoat of the prosecutrix was seized and examined by Dr. (Smt.) N. Yadav Rohan (P.W. 9) and vide report (Exhibit P/18) she advised for chemical analysis. Articles were sent for chemical examination but no report was obtained. For proof of age, one mark-sheet of the prosecutrix was seized vide Exhibit P/13. Investigation was conducted and on completion of the investigation, the Appellant was charge sheeted.

  4. The Appellant was charged under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC by the trial Court. He denied commission of offence. The Prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. On examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Appellant denied all the incriminating evidence against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. He has stated in defence that on the of date of incident, in the same night, he was assaulted by his father and uncle of the prosecutrix and four other persons. He was taken to the police station in injured condition where he lodged a report. Thereafter, he was admitted in hospital for treatment. He also alleged that a false report has been lodged against him. Father of the prosecutrix has constructed house on his land and this was the reason for falsely implicating him. Impugned judgment was passed by the trial Court by which the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

  5. The appeal has been preferred while Appellant was in jail. It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT