CRR No. 279 of 2007. Case: Tulsa Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.. Chhattisgarh High Court
| Case Number | CRR No. 279 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Awadh Tripathi, Advocate and For Respondents: Vaibhav Gowardhan, Panel Lawyer |
| Judges | Pritinker Diwaker and Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 313; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 363, 366, 376 |
| Judgement Date | February 02, 2017 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh High Court |
Judgment:
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.
-
This revision has been brought against the judgment dated 25.01.2007 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No. 150/05, by which respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charges under section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC.
-
The case of prosecution is this, that prosecutrix PW/1 is daughter of applicant Tulsa Bai PW/2, resident of Village-Dhaba under the jurisdiction of District-Durg. One unnumbered FIR Ex. D/1 lodged in Police-Station Kumhari lodged by prosecutrix PW/1 on 22.1.2005, in which she stated that on 21.01.2005, at about 5:00 p.m. in the evening, she was going to answer the call of nature, at that time, respondent No. 2 enticed her by promising to marry her and eloped with her. Her mother, maternal uncle and ex-sarpanch Phirobai PW/6 came to the house of respondent and took her back. Offence under section 363 and 366 of IPC were registered. Later on, numbered FIR Ex. P/4 was recorded in P.S.-Old Bhilai. While conducting investigation spot map Ex. P/8 was prepared and respondent No. 2 was arrested. Statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded.
-
Later on, on 28.02.2005 one written application Ex. D/4 was presented before S.P. Durg by Tulsa Bai PW/2 that on the date of incident i.e. 21.01.2005 prosecutrix PW/1 aged 14 years had gone to answer the call of nature in the field when respondent No. 2 caught hold of her dragged her giving threats and forcefully committed rape with her. When Tulsa Bai PW/2 came to know of the incident. Prosecutrix PW/1 was threatened and influenced not to speak about the incident of rape, due to which, she did not narrate about commission of this offence. When she lodged the FIR for the first time at that time prosecutrix PW/1 was in the house of respondent No. 2. After lodging FIR ex-sarpanch Phirobai PW/6 brought back the prosecutrix PW/1. After sometime, on enquiring from prosecutrix PW/1, she came to know about the whole incident. On approaching the police station on 22.01.2005 and giving information about whole incident, she was assured that offence under section 376 of IPC had also been registered and prosecutrix PW/1 would be subjected to medical examination. No such action was taken by the concerned police-station, due to which she was compelled to file application Ex. D/4 before S.P. Durg. In further investigation, prosecutrix PW/1 was medically examined by Dr. Smt. Pratibha Dani PW/10 vide Ex. P/10. Respondent No. 2 was also medically examined by Dr. V.R. Meshram PW/3 vide Ex. P/1. One underwear of prosecutrix was seized vide Ex. P/3. The seized underwear and the slides were prepared from the secretion of the private parts of the prosecutrix were sent for medical examination and report Ex. P/7 was...
To continue reading
Request your trial