Hemant And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code,"Â Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of

Rs.500/- with default stipulation

further story of the prosecution. But, the other above-named witnesses have categorically stated that in the village panchayat, in their presence, the",

prosecutrix named both the accused/Appellants and stated that both the Appellants had committed sexual intercourse with her.,

Dhanushram (PW10) has further stated that both the Appellants also admitted in the said panchayat the allegation levelled against them. They,

were fined also by the panchayat. Rajuram (PW3) has also supported the above statement of Dhanushram (PW10) and stated that both the,

Appellants were fined by the panchayat and they have also deposited the fine amount. Jagdeo (PW4) has also admitted that in the said panchayat,",

both the Appellants, on being asked, had admitted committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and for that one agreement (Ex.P4) was also",

executed by both the Appellants. The said agreement has been seized vide Ex.P3. Rajuram (PW3) has supported the above fact. All the above,

witnesses have deposed that an agreement was executed and they have remained firm during their cross-examination. Raghu (PW16) and Rajuram,

(PW3) have admitted that the said agreement was seized in their presence.,

Though the prosecutrix (PW18) has not been able to speak about the incident in detail during her examination before the Court yet she has stated,

that by mounting over her wrong act was done with her.,

Sukhnandan (PW11) is the witness before whom Kotwari Register was seized vide Ex.P9. Dr. S.C. Shrivastava (PW12) has examined the,

Appellants and has given his reports (Ex.P10 and P11) in which he has stated that the Appellants were found capable of committing sexual,

intercourse. Sitabai (PW14) has not stated anything about the incident and has been declared hostile. Station House Officer Pramod Naidu (PW15) is,

the witness who recorded the FIR (Ex.P1) as per the oral report of Punitram (PW1). During investigation, he also recorded statements of the parents",

of the prosecutrix Punitram (PW1) and Chhediyabai (PW5) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Assistant Sub-Inspector D.P. Bhoi (PW17) has stated that the,

agreement (Ex.P4) was seized and Kotwari Register was seized vide Ex.P9. He did the further investigation into the offence in question. Dr. Kiran,

Agrawal (PW19) examined the prosecutrix.,

On minute examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is found that though the prosecutrix (PW18) has not been able to state about",

the incident in detail during her examination before the Court yet her father Punitram (PW1) and mother Chhediyabai (PW5) have categorically stated,

that when they came to know, on being asked, the prosecutrix told the names of the Appellants. In the village panchayat also, the prosecutrix took the",

names of the Appellants. Statements of the parents of the prosecutrix have remained unchallenged before the Court. Rajuram (PW3), Jagdeo (PW4),",

Sukhdeo (PW6), Kashiram (PW7), Kriparam (PW8), Ramlal (PW9) and Dhanushram (PW10) have also categorically stated that the prosecutrix had",

taken the names of both the Appellants before the panchayat. Rajuram (PW3), Jagdeo (PW4), Dhanushram (PW10) have further stated that both the",

Appellants had admitted the charges levelled against them before the said panchayat. During cross-examination, these statements have not been",

challenged by the Appellants. Further, it is also clear that in the said panchayat, one agreement (Ex.P4) was also executed by the Appellants which",

was later on seized vide Ex.P3. From perusal of the said agreement (Ex.P4) also, it reveals that both the Appellants had admitted their guilt before the",

village panchayat.,

Regarding the age of the prosecutrix, Kotwari Register was seized vide Ex.P9. In the Kotwari Register, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is",

mentioned as 1.11.1974. The incident was of the year 1993. Thus, as per the entry of the Kotwari Register, the age of the prosecutrix, on the date of",

incident, was above 16 years is established. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is also clear that both the Appellants had committed",

sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Though on the date of incident she was above 16 years of age yet from the evidence of the prosecution it is,

well established that the mental condition of the prosecutrix was not sound. It is true that there is no document or medical evidence on record,

regarding mental condition of the prosecutrix, but from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that her mental condition was not sound.",

Therefore, she cannot be legally held to be able to give consent for the sexual intercourse done with her. Thus, since the prosecutrix was not able to",

give consent for the sexual intercourse, the act of the Appellants certainly falls within the category of rape.",

In view of the foregoing, I find that the prosecution has duly proved its case against the Appellants beyond doubt. The finding of the Trial Court is",

just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.,

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment under challenge is affirmed.",

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,