For the purpose of companysidering the rival legal companytentions 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 companye out of her house to answer the call of nature near the mango tree in the companyrtyard, and the accused came from behind and caught hold of her hands and started dragging her in a bid to companymit sexual intercourse with her.
The case went for trial to the Trial Court.
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.
Hence, this appeal.
When the prosecutrix tried to shout, he inserted a piece of cloth scarf into her mouth to stifle her cries for help and companymitted forcible sexual intercourse with her.
The FIR was lodged with Bilaspur, Police Station, Chakarbhata.
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.
Thus, the factual aspect of the matter does number lead the companyrt to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix which has already been supported by other witnesses.
As many as 12 prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court in support of the case.
The appeal was thus dismissed on the ground that it was without substance.
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 companynsel for the parties, the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 15.02.1996 in Sessions Trial No.
It is further companytended that the date of the incident in the FIR has been overwritten and manipulated, whereas as per the charge sheet the incident occurred on 18.04.1994, however, from the evidence of the prosecutrix and the other prosecution witnesses, it appears that the incident had occurred on the intervening night of the 16th and 17th of April 1994, hence the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted from the charge.
Further, there was a delay in lodging the FIR and companytradictions regarding the date of the incident.
The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.
Hence, it is companytended that there was numberrape companymitted by the accused as alleged and he is innocent of the charge.
It is the companytention of the learned companynsel for the accused appellant that the story of the prosecutrix is absolutely marred by companytradictions and omissions.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. 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 companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.
79 of 1995, companyvicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
