Page 1 of 19

2026:CGHC:23801

AFR

Reserved on : 11.05.2026

Delivered on : 15.06.2026

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 305 of 2005

1 - Vijay Kumar S/o Siddheshwar Prasad Verma, R/o Gram Koliha, P.S.

Kashdol, Distt. Raipur.

...Appellant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through: P.S. Kashdol, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate

For Respondent/State: Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Panel Lawyer

For Objector : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

CAV Judgment

1.The appellant by way of this appeal has challenged the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2005 passed by

the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar (CG) in

Sessions Trial No. 344/2004 whereby and whereunder, appellant

has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Page 2 of 19

Conviction u/S.Sentence RI.Fine In default of

payment of fine

306 IPC 7 Years Rs. 2000/-1 year RI

376(1) IPC 10 Years Rs. 3000/-1 year RI

450 IPC 7 Years Rs. 2000/-1 year RI

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marg intimation dated

22.08.2004 (Ex. P/4) was recorded by Sakharam (PW-2) alleging

that daughter of elder brother of Jai Kumar, Heeramani was found

dead by burning herself and daughter-in-law Laxmi Bai alongwith

the other residents namely Pratap Verma, Same Bai, Orelia Bai

have kept the victim on a khat and also stated that the victim has

informed Laxmi Bai that she was burnt at the time of cooking of

food. In the intimation it has also been mentioned that the door of

the house was closed and other person namely Hareliya Bai who

was also present told that at 01:30 PM in the house Vijay Verma

entered and he was seen by Jai Kumar and because of fight, the

victim has got fire. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital and

in the midway the victim expired.

3.On the basis of marg intimation (Ex. P/2), the police of Police

Station Kasdol reached the spot and, after issuing notice

prepared the inquest panchnama of the deceased and a Dehati

Nalishi report (Ex. P/12) regarding death of the victim was

recorded. The body was sent for postmortem, statements of the

witnesses were recorded. Burnt clothes and other articles,

including matchsticks, were seized from the place of occurrence.

A underwear containing semen stains was seized from the

Page 3 of 19

accused, and the accused was also medically examined. On the

basis Dehati Nalishi, FIR (Ex. P/11) was registered by the Police

Station Kasdol for commission of offence under Sections 450,

376, 306 IPC on 23.08.2004 alleging that the deceased was

residing with her brother Jai Kumar and Sister-in-law (Bhabhi)

Laxmi Bai in village Koliha. On 22.08.2004, which was Sunday,

accused Jai Kumar had gone to the agricultural field along with

his wife Laxmi Bai, and at that time the deceased was alone in

the house. It is alleged that accused Vijay Kumar entered the

house and, after closing the door, committed forcible rape upon

the deceased. At that very time, Jai Kumar returned from the field

and called out for door open. At that time, accused Vijay Kumar

was coming out of the room and proceeding towards another

room, whereupon Jai Kumar caught hold of him and assaulted

him. Hareliya Bai informed that the accused has assaulted the

deceased, therefore, she set herself ablaze.

4.It is also the case of the prosecution that while the deceased was

being taken from the house to the hospital for treatment, she

succumbed to death on the way. Thereafter, her body was

brought back to the village and kept near the main road, and

thereafter a report was lodged at the police station regarding the

incident. Upon sufficient incriminating material being found

against the accused during investigation, he was arrested and,

after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed

before the Court of the learned Magistrate under Sections 450,

376(1) and 306 of the IPC. Upon filing of the charge-sheet by

Page 4 of 19

Police Station Kasdol, the learned Magistrate, finding that the

offences were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions,

committed the case to the Sessions Court which was registered

as Sessions Trial No. 344/2004. The accused denied the charges

and faced trial.

5.To bring home the charges against appellant, the prosecution

examined as many as 16 witnesses namely PW/1 Shiv Kumar

Verma, PW/2 Sakharam, PW/3 Laxmi Bai, PW/4 Samme Bai,

PW/5 Janak Kumar Lahre, Patwari, PW/6 Dr. Y.K. Sharma, PW/7

Ganeshram Kashyap, PW/8 M.R. Sinha, Assistant Sub-Inspector

PW/9 Tamras, PW/10 Harishchand, PW/11 Tijram, PW/12 Lilaram

@ Santosh, PW/13 Mahesh Kumar Verma, PW/14 Jai Kumar,

PW/15 Subhash Das, Sub Inspector, PW/16 Jeetnarayan Shukla,

Head Constable and exhibited documents Ex.P/1 summon under

175 Cr.P.C., Ex.P/2 Naksa Panchnama, Ex.P/3 Najri Naksa,

Ex.P/4 Intimation of unnatural death, Ex.P/5 to Ex.P/7 (A)

Application for Medical Examination, Ex.P/8-10 Seizure Memo,

P/11 FIR, Ex.P/12 Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P13 to Ex.P16 Statement of

witnesses, PW/17 Duty certificate and handing over of the

deadbody, Ex.P/18 Supurdnama, PW/19 Seizure Memo, Ex.P/20

Arrest Memo, Ex.P/21 List of article for chemical examination,

Ex.P/22 Receipt from FSL Raipur, Ex.P/23 application for FSL,

Ex.P/24 Memo to Dr. Shesha Saxena.

6.The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and

examined two witnesses namely DW/1 Ravi and D.W./2 Hemlal

Verma and exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3 Police

Page 5 of 19

statement of the witnesses, Ex.D/4 to Ex.D/6 letters written by the

deceased, Ex.D/7 Police statement of the witness. The accused

was specifically directed to explain the circumstances regarding

availability of sperm as per Ex. P/23 FSL report, he has not given

any explanation, but simply denied the said acquisition in

question No. 61 to 65.

7.Upon appreciation of the evidence and material on record, the

learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as

aforesaid. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the

present appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant

remained in jail from 25.08.2004 to 20.10.2004 for total 56 days

during trial and again from 14.03.2005 to till the sentence was

suspended and bail was granted by this Court on 17.08.2005.

8.Learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant would submit that the

appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He

would assail the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence as being illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence

on record. He would submit that learned trial Court ought to have

seen that the important witness Hareliabai was not examined and

the appellant has only been convicted merely on the testimony of

the interested witnesses. He would further submit that ingredients

of Section 107 are not made out as appellant has neither

instigated the victim to commit suicide nor has engaged himself in

conspiracy, added any act or illegal omission in the commission of

suicide. He would further submit that the independent witnesses

namely PW-9 Tamras, PW-10 Harish Chand, PW- 11 Tejram and

Page 6 of 19

PW-12 Leelaram have turned hostile which creates doubt over

the prosecution case.

9.Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that the deceased had

love affair with the appellant as the deceased wrote love letters to

the appellant from Ex.D/4 to Ex.D/6. The learned Senior Counsel

to substantaite the submission regarding love affiars he would

rely upon the deposition of D.W./1 Ravi and D.W./2 Hemlal

Verma. He would further submit that P.W/6 Dr. Y.K. Sharma has

deposed that no definite opinion can be given regarding recent

sexual assault or injury on the body of the deceased. As such, he

would submit that she had committed suicide only because she

was seen in compromising position by her own brother. In this

circumstances, offence under Section 450 of the IPC is also not

made out. He would further submit that for a conviction under

Section 306 of the IPC presence of clear mens rea – an intention

to abet the act is essential which is missing in the present case.

On these grounds, he would pray for allowing the appeal. To

substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of

M.P. {2025 SCC Online SC 107}, Arvind Singh vs. State of

Bihar {(2001) 6 SCC 407} and M. Arjunan vs. State {(2019) 3

SCC 315}.

10.Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposing

the appeal would submit that the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence has been passed after proper

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on

Page 7 of 19

record and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity

warranting interference by this Court. He would further submit

that PW/3 Laxmi has clearly stated that when she managed to

enter the house, she saw the deceased in burnt condition and the

deceased herself has said to her that she has committed suicide

only because the appellant has committed rape on her and soon

after that she has died. This witness has remained firm during her

examination and nothing has been elicited from her in her cross-

examination. Lastly, learned counsel would submit that the

accused was afforded an opportunity to explain the incriminating

evidence during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

wherein he has not placed any material to dislodge the case of

the prosecution and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

11.Learned counsel for the objector while making submission has

supported the case of the prosecution and has submitted that the

finding recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from

any illegality warranting interference by this Court and would pray

for dismissal of the appeal.

12.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the trial Court with utmost satisfaction.

13.From the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties

and perusal of the record, the points emerged for determination

by this Court are ;

1) Whether the appellant/accused committed forcible sexual

intercourse with the deceased against her will and without her

consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under

Page 8 of 19

Section 376(1) of the IPC and whether, the appellant/accused

trespassed into the house of the deceased with intent to

commit this offence?

2) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused abetted the

commission of suicide by the deceased and thereby

committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of the

IPC?

14.For appreciation of these points, this Court has to go through the

evidence as well as the legal position in this regard.

15.The first question which arises for consideration is whether the

prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant

committed forcible sexual intercourse with the deceased. In this

regard, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of

PW/14 Jai Kumar and PW/3 Laxmi Bai. PW/14 Jai Kumar has

categorically stated that when he returned to the house and

called for the door to be opened, the deceased raised alarm by

shouting “Guddu Bhaiya” and after opening the door disclosed to

him that the appellant had committed rape upon her and when he

caught hold of the accused, then he prayed for pardon and he

has further stated that he has assaulted the accused by stick and

thereafter, the accused ran away. The witness was cross-

examined wherein he denied the suggestion regarding love affair

with the accused. He has also admitted that a case of assault

upon the witness for assaulting the accused is pending. Thus,

the testimony of this witness remained unshaken during the

Page 9 of 19

extensive cross-examination.

16.PW/3 Laxmi Bai has also supported the prosecution case and

stated that when she entered the house after the incident, she

found the deceased in a burnt condition on the same day of the

incident of alleged forceful rape committed by the appellant and

upon being asked, the deceased disclosed that the appellant had

come to the house and committed rape upon her and since the

accused had done wrong act with her therefore, she had set

herself ablaze. In the cross-examination she remained firm and

stated that when she asked the victim then she informed her that

she has poured kerosene oil upon her and also told that since the

accused has committed rape upon her therefore, she herself has

set ablaze. She has also told that when she was asking about

the incident from the victim, then Harishchand ( PW/10) and

Tijram ( PW/11) were standing two-three steps away from her.

17.PW/1 Shivkumar while recording merg has stated that Jai Kumar

has narrated him the incident regarding commission of offence of

rape by the accused and assault made by him which was

exhibited as Ex. D/1. The said witness in his evidence before the

trial Court has retaliated the statement made before the Police

and he was subjected to extensive cross-examination by the

defense and in the cross-examination, he has also stated that he

already told to the Police regarding commission of offence of rape

by the appellant, but if it has not been recorded in the said

statement then it cannot given any explanation to it. In the trial

Court he was confronted with the statement recorded before the

Page 10 of 19

Police Station, wherein it has been stated that the appellant has

committed illegal act upon victim.

18.PW/6 Dr. Y.K. Sharma has stated that no definite opinion

regarding recent sexual assault can be given as the cause of

death is due to shock of 85% burn and also stated that private

part of the victim also got burnt in fire. The Doctor has stated in

paragraph-9 that there was sperm on the front and inner sides of

the undergarment as such he has sent the undergarment of the

victim for chemical analysis vide Ex.P/7. He has also given

opinion that the accused is capable to perform intercourse.

19.PW/7 Ganesh Ram Kashyap, seizure witness of Ex.P/9 by which

the gamchha which was containing some white spots, torn white

cloth on which some sperm like spots were present, one Salwar

(bottom wear) torn on both leg sides and sperm like spot was

present on the middle of the Salwar, were seized from the place

of occurrence. This witness has supported the seizure of the

articles as mentioned in Ex.P/9 and in the cross-examination he

has reiterated that he has seen Salwar, a white cloth at the place

of occurrence and remaining articles were shown him at the

police station which has been mentioned in Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/10.

20.P.W/15 Subhash Das who has investigated the matter has stated

in paragraph-11 about the availability of the torn Gamchha, white

torn cloth and torn Salwar in which white spot like sperm was

found. This witness has been cross-examined but nothing has

been brought on record to dilute the evidence.

21.The learned trial Court while recording of conviction has

Page 11 of 19

recorded its finding in paragraph-50 that accused has committed

rape upon the victim and the victim has informed this incident to

his brother, thereafter, she has committed suicide as such the

appellant has committed the offence of not only rape but also

abetment to commit suicide and accordingly, it has convicted the

accused.

Submission regarding interested/relative witnesses :-

22.The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that PW/3

and PW/14 who are the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased

are interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased, as

such, their evidence should be ignored is now being considered

by this Court. The submission made by the learned Senior

Counsel is liable to be rejected on the count that there is sufficient

material on record to corroborate the evidence of these witnesses

as the forensic analysis report (Ex.P/23) clearly suggests that on

Gamchha, torn white clothes, undergarment of the accused and

slide of the victim sperm were found. So far as the Salwar no

sperm was found. The seizure witness PW/7 on whose presence

the articles were seized at the place of occurrence has supported

the possibility of commission of rape upon the victim as her

Salwar, undergarmet of the victim and Gamchha were found in

torn condition which clearly suggest that on attempt of

commission of offence, the victim had objected it and during her

course of resistance, the clothes must have torn out. This

indicates that the victim was not a consenting party but she was

victim of rape. PW/3 has deposed before the trial Court that when

Page 12 of 19

the victim came from the room after opening of the door she told

her that she is subjected to commission of rape by the appellant

and this version of the PW/3 was not at all diluted by the defence

despite extensive cross-examination of this witness, as such the

evidence of PW/3 is relevant as per Section 6 of the Evidence

Act. The witness’s evidence is in continuation of the incident

without any interval as such, it cannot be held that a fabrication of

the facts have been done by this witness.

23.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Krishna Kumar Malik vs.

State of Haryana {(2011) 7 SCC 130} has examined the

provisions of Section 6 and the contingencies when the evidence

of hearsay evidence can be admissible as it is essential to

complete the missing link in chain of evidence of solitary witness

and held in paragraph 34 to 37 as under :-

34. We shall now deal with Section 6 of the Act, wich reads

as under:-

"6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same

transaction - Facts which, though not in issue, are so

connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the

same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred

at the same time and place or at different times and

places.

35. Black's Law Dictionary defines Res Gestae as follows:

(Latin: "things done") The events at issue, or other

events contemporaneous with them In evidence law,

words and statements about the res gestae are

usually admissible under a hearsay exception (such

as present sense impression or excited utterance).

36. The said evidence thus becomes relevant and

admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of the Act.

37. Section 6 of the Act has an exception to the general rule

where-under, hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But

as for bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of

Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must

Page 13 of 19

be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there could

not be an interval which would allow fabrication. In other

words, the statements said to be admitted as forming part

of res gestae must have been made contemporaneously

with the act or immediately thereafter. Admittedly, she had

met her mother Narayani and sister soon after the

occurrence, thus, they could have been the best res gestae

witnesses, still the prosecution did not think it proper to get

their statements recorded. This shows the negligent and

casual manner in which prosecution had conducted the

investigation then the trial. This lacunae has not been

explained by the prosecution. The prosecution has not tried

to complete this mssing link so as to prove it, beyond

shadow of doubt, that it was Appellant who had committed

the said offences.”

24.Further, the law does not provide that the evidence of the

interested / relative witness should be ignored if they support the

case of the prosecution when it gets corroboration from other

evidences available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of Goverdhan and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh

{(2025) 3 SCC 378} has held in paragraph 98 to 100 as under :-

“98. The appellants had also contended that the PW-10

was an interested witness and her testimony may not be

believable. In this regard, it must be noted that PW-10, the

mother of the deceased though was related to the victim

cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be an

interested witness. As to who is an “interested witness” and

the “related witness” has been succinctly explained by this

Court in the case of Mohd. Rojali Ali Vs. The State of

Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567, wherein it was held that:

“13. As regards the contention that all the

eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is

by now well-settled that a related witness cannot be

said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of

being a relative of the victim. This Court has

elucidated the difference between “interested” and

“related” witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that

a witness may be called interested only when he or

she derives some benefit from the result of a

litigation, which in the context of a criminal case

would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect

interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior

enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to

falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State

of Rajasthan v. Kalki [State of Rajasthan v. Kalki,

Page 14 of 19

(1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 593] ; Amit v.

State of U.P. [Amit v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC

107 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 590] ; and Gangabhavani v.

Rayapati Venkat Reddy [Gangabhavani v. Rayapati

Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298 : (2014) 6 SCC

(Cri) 182] ). Recently, this difference was reiterated in

Ganapathiv. State of T.N. [Ganapathi v. State of T.N.,

(2018) 5 SCC 549 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 793] , in the

following terms, by referring to the three-Judge Bench

decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [State of

Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC

(Cri) 593] : (Ganapathi case [Ganapathi v. State of

T.N., (2018) 5 SCC 549 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 793] ,

SCC p. 555, para 14) “

14. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A

witness may be called “interested” only when he or

she derives some benefit from the result of a

litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an

accused person punished. A witness who is a natural

one and is the only possible eyewitness in the

circumstances of a case cannot be said to be

“interested”.”

14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the

offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim,

whose presence on the scene of the offence would be

natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot

automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as

interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with

respect to interested witnesses in criminal cases was

made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab

[Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1953) 2 SCC 36 :

1954 SCR 145 : AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1953 Cri LJ

1465], wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366, para

26)

“26. A witness is normally to be considered

independent unless he or she springs from sources

which are likely to be tainted and that usually means

unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against

the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.

Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen

the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent

person.”

15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not

treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and

needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently

reliable, probable, cogent and consistent.

23. We may refer to the observations of this Court in

Page 15 of 19

Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry) [Jayabalan v.

State (UT of Pondicherry), (2010) 1 SCC 199 : (2010)

2 SCC (Cri) 966] : (SCC p. 213, para 23) “23. We are

of the considered view that in cases where the court

is called upon to deal with the evidence of the

interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while

appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not

be pedantic. The court must be cautious in

appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the

interested witnesses but the court must not be

suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour

of the court must be to look for consistency. The

evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown

out solely because it comes from the mouth of a

person who is closely related to the victim.”

99. As also observed by the High Court, we do not see any

reason why the mother of the victim should falsely

implicate the appellants without any rhyme or reason more

so when apparently there was no previous animosity of the

mother Lata Bai with any of the appellants.

100. Lata Bai, PW-10 is certainly not an interested witness

even though she was related to the victim and her

testimony cannot be impeached on this ground.”

25.Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Baban Shankar

Daphal and Others vs. State of Maharashtra {2025 SCC

Online 137} has examined the evidentiary value of related

witness and has held in paragraph 28 to 30 as under :-

“28. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses,

particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is

often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not

automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The

term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal

stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to

falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal

gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone

who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime,

and their testimony should not be dismissed simply

because of their relationship to the victim. Courts must

assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their

statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy.

29. The distinction between "interested" and "related"

witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of

Punjab,3 where this Court emphasized that a close relative

is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent

person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related

Page 16 of 19

witness, the court should focus on the consistency and

credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the

evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is

instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and

consistency with other evidence in the case. This position

has been reiterated by this Court in :-

i. Md. Rojali Ali and Ors v. The State of Assam

Ministry of Home Affairs (2019) 19 SCC567.

ii. Ganapathi v. State of T.N.(2018) 5 SCC 549.

iii. Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry. (2010)

1 SCC 199.

30. Though the eyewitnesses who have been examined in

the present case were closely related to the deceased,

namely his wife, daughter and son, their testimonies are

consistent with respect to the accused persons being the

assailants who inflicted wounds on the deceased. As is

revealed from the sequence of events that transpired, one

of the family members 1954 SCR 145 was subjected to an

assault. It was thus quite natural for the other family

members to rush on the spot to intervene. The presence of

the family members on the spot and thus being eyewitness

has been well established. In such circumstances, merely

because the eyewitnesses are family members, their

testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that ground.”

26.This submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant since the interested / related witness has less

evidentiary value therefore, the learned trial Court has committed

illegality in convicting the appellant is misconceived and deserves

to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.

27.The further submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant the the victim had love affair with the appellant and

committed suicide only because she was seen in a compromising

position by her brother, also deserves to be rejected as the

learned trial Court in paragraph 39 and 40 has rightly dispelled

the said submission by recording its finding that from the

Page 17 of 19

evidence of PW/14 and PW/3 it is quite vivid that there was no

love affair between them and she was not consenting party. Even

otherwise, if the victim has love affair with the accused then why

the clothes of the victim have been found in a torn condition, it

has not been explained by the accused which are sufficient to

dislodge the theory of love affair between the deceased and the

appellant. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the

letters exhibited by the defence are not sufficient to establish any

consensual relationship between the parties. Therefore, the

prosecution is able to prove the case against the appellant

beyond reasonable doubt that he has committed offence of rape

upon the victim. Thus, conviction of the appellant cannot be

found faulty for commission of offence under Section 376(I) of the

IPC.

28.Further submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant

that the prosecution has not examined Hareliya Bai, therefore, the

conviction of the appellant on the basis of relative witness who

are interested without outcome of the trial deserves to be set

aside by this Court, is being now considered by this Court. The

record of the trial Court would show that Hareliya Bai was given

up by the prosecution on 06.01.2005 and by other evidence, the

prosecution is able to prove the involvement of the appellant

beyond reasonable doubt. It is pertinent to mention here that in

the present case, the victim because of herself set ablaze has

expired and her statement made to the sister-in-law Laxmi Bai

(PW/3) is admissible in the evidence as per provisions of Section

Page 18 of 19

6 of the Evidence Act, as held by this Court in foregoing

paragraph, as such, non-examination of Hareliya Bai by the

prosecution does not weaken the prosecution case, thus,

submission made by learned senior counsel for the appellant that

due to non-examination of Hareliay Bai, the appellant deserves to

be acquitted is misconceived and accordingly it is rejected.

29.So far as conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the

IPC, the act of the appellant had a direct nexus with the

commission of suicide by the deceased. It can be deduced that

the deceased might have been left with extreme mental trauma

and humiliation on account of the forcible act committed by the

appellant as in Indian society, if a woman is subjected to rape,

she loses her dignity, self-esteem and faces difficulty in facing the

society which are sufficient to instigate her to commit suicide,

thus, there is sufficient material on record that on account of

commission of rape by the appellant, the victim was compelled to

commit suicide on the same date of incident of commission of

rape upon her as it amounts to instigation as provided under

Section 107 of the IPC. Thus, the conviction of the appellant

under Section 306 of the IPC does not suffer from perversity or

illegality warranting interference by this Court.

30.So far as the offence under Section 450 of the IPC is concerned,

the evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant

entered the house of the deceased in absence of guardians and

committed the offence of rape on victim after closing the door

from inside. Thus, his entry into the house was clearly with

Page 19 of 19

preparation and intention to commit an offence punishable with

imprisonment and therefore the ingredients of Section 450 of the

IPC are fully established.

31.In view of the aforesaid analysis and re-appreciation of the entire

oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is

of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to

prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable

doubt.

32.Accordingly, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit deserves to

be and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence

imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court are hereby

affirmed. As per record, the appellant is reported on bail, since the

appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled

and he is directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court

for serving out the remaining part of the sentence within two

months from today. In case the appellant fails to surrender before

the trial Court, then the trial Court shall take necessary steps to

secure his custody in accordance with law, and submit its

compliance report.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge

kishore