MUKESH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-95
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CHHATTISGARH)
Decided on
September 25,2014
MUKESH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. N K THE ACCUSED [REFERRED TO]NARAYAN SAHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. CHHOTEYLAL [REFERRED TO]
MD. IQBAL VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MANUBHAI PANCHABHAI SABALIYA T. KOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-82] [REFERRED TO]ALPESHKUMAR @ PAPPU SHAILASBHAI DUND VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-403] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. VARUN KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2015-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NAKUL TRIMBAK BHANGARE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-245] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
SUNNY VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
HIMANSHU ALIAS SHAMMI VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH MURMU AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. WASIM PASHA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
DILIPBHAI LALJIBHAI VADHEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-253] [REFERRED TO]
GURMUKH SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAM SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-103] [REFERRED TO]
ALAM CHAND VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
SRI JINTU PHUKAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SHAILESH SADASHIV MOHITE [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-444] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
MAHMOOD FAROOQUI VS. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-417] [REFERRED TO]
SURVIR @ TENTA @ GOVIND VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI SOMABHAI TADVI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-12-164] [REFERRED TO]
SABANNA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2017-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
BANSARI LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. SATISH KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJEE LAL VS. STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-131] [REFERRED TO]
NARANBHAI SHANTILAL TADVI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-44] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-113] [REFERRED TO]
VARUN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
DHINA RAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAY HONHAGA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
YASHPAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10.08.2010, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No.342 of 1996 dismissing the appeal of the appellant and upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1995, whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 5 months.
(2.)For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder:
On 18.4.1994, at about 12.00 to 12.30 a.m. at night, the prosecutrix, Kumari Bai, had come out of her house to answer the call of nature near the mango tree in the courtyard, and the accused came from behind and caught hold of her hands and started dragging her in a bid to commit sexual intercourse with her. When she tried to run away in order to get out of his clutches, he again caught hold of her hair and threw her on the ground and caught hold of her legs, as a result of which the prosecutrix suffered injuries on the right side of her forehead. When the prosecutrix tried to shout, he inserted a piece of cloth (scarf) into her mouth to stifle her cries for help and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that after the commission of the offence, the accused ran away and she went back to her house and informed about the incident to her sister-in- law, brother-in-law and other family members. The FIR was lodged with Bilaspur, Police Station, Chakarbhata. The case went for trial to the Trial Court.
As many as 12 prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court in support of the case. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and therefore, he prayed for acquittal from the charge framed against him.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 15.02.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1995, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
(3.)On appeal, the High Court after going through the evidence on record and the statement of the witnesses held that though, there appears to be minor contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix with respect to the timing of lodging the FIR, but considering her entire statement, it is held that the same is rendered insignificant. Thus, the factual aspect of the matter does not lead the court to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix which has already been supported by other witnesses. The appeal was thus dismissed on the ground that it was without substance. Hence, this appeal.
(2.)For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder:
On 18.4.1994, at about 12.00 to 12.30 a.m. at night, the prosecutrix, Kumari Bai, had come out of her house to answer the call of nature near the mango tree in the courtyard, and the accused came from behind and caught hold of her hands and started dragging her in a bid to commit sexual intercourse with her. When she tried to run away in order to get out of his clutches, he again caught hold of her hair and threw her on the ground and caught hold of her legs, as a result of which the prosecutrix suffered injuries on the right side of her forehead. When the prosecutrix tried to shout, he inserted a piece of cloth (scarf) into her mouth to stifle her cries for help and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that after the commission of the offence, the accused ran away and she went back to her house and informed about the incident to her sister-in- law, brother-in-law and other family members. The FIR was lodged with Bilaspur, Police Station, Chakarbhata. The case went for trial to the Trial Court.
As many as 12 prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court in support of the case. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and therefore, he prayed for acquittal from the charge framed against him.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 15.02.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1995, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
(3.)On appeal, the High Court after going through the evidence on record and the statement of the witnesses held that though, there appears to be minor contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix with respect to the timing of lodging the FIR, but considering her entire statement, it is held that the same is rendered insignificant. Thus, the factual aspect of the matter does not lead the court to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix which has already been supported by other witnesses. The appeal was thus dismissed on the ground that it was without substance. Hence, this appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.