ANNEXURE 'Y' ADVOCATE'S CHECK LIST (TO BE CERTIFIED BY ADVOCATE- eS FE with Certificate ~~ | SLP (C) has been filed in Form No. 28 ‘with certificate ON-RECORD) \ — — Fhe Puation is as per the provisions of Order XV Rule t {2 ["3. [The papers of SLP have been « arranged as per Order XX1, Rule BOO. 4. | Bitef list of dates/events has been filed Yes 3, | Paragraphs and pages of paper books have ‘Been numbered [Yes | consecutively and correctly noted in Index. \ & | Proper and required number of paper Books (i+1yhave been — | Yes filed ! (7. |The 65 years + NA. sc/sT : NA. Woman/child : N.A. Disabled : NLA. Legal Aid Case: NA. In custody: NA. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): NA. (SATISH PANDEY) Advocate for the Petitioners Registration No.2834 E-mail: stspdyy@gmail.com @si Date: 02.11.2020SYNO) B ‘The Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 1081/2002 filed by the petitioner and has confirmed the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 450 of IPC (RI. for 7 years and fine of Rs.200 with default stipulation) and Under Section 376 of IPC (R.L for 7 years and fine of Rs.200 with default stipulation). ‘The prosecution story is that on 12. 10.2011 at about 4:00 am early in the morning, when the prosecutrix was sleeping with her child on cot in her house, the accused came inside the room and climbed over the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her and fled away. The version of the prosecutrix is that she identified the accused by his voice and when he was running, she saw him. When her mother came from attending the call of nature, she narrated the story and FIR was lodged. The Hon’ble High Court as well the Ld. Trial Court committed manifest error of law by ignoring the crying facts and circumstances of the case, in convicting and sentencing the petitioner on conjectures and surmises, for the following reasons:- i ‘The prosecutrix herself has admitted in evidence that all of first she did not recognize the accused and thereafter she identified him by his voice. It is submitted that in the village there will be hundreds of men like the petitioner and it is very difficult to believe the version of the prosecutrix without disclosing the special characteristics of the voice of the petitioner to be identified or to say she heard the voice of the petitioner several times, so she identified him. Therefore thisii. iii. vi. vii. c part of evidence of the prosecutrix is suspicious and not safe to be relied upon. ‘The prosecuttix further says that she saw the accused from behind and identified him and named him. It is submitted that neither in FIR nor in police diary statement, the prosecutrix, has stated how she identified him by face and name, when the incident occurred at 4 o’clock in the morning and when it is quite dark in month of October. Therefore also this part of evidence of the prosecutrix is not safe to be relied upon. The prosecutrix was consenting party as the door was not locked and the petitioner entered the room , removed the clothes of both and committed sexual intercourse and left the room , but the prosecutrix did not resist not cried for help. It is submitted that might have seen by her relative, therefore to preserve her self, she had made false allegation against the petitioner. From the record it appears that there was objection from the members of the society of the prosecutrix herself regarding frequent visit of the Up-sarpanch Jwala Prasad to the house of the prosecutrix and the petitioner had also objected it. Therefore for enmity, the petitioner might have roped in the false case by the prosecutrix in connivance with Up- Sarpanch. There is no definite medical opinion regarding the commission of rape by the petitioner. The solitary testimony of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence for relying her evidence without corroboration with other prosecution witnesses so as to warrant conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 376 of IPC. ‘The petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt as the identity2 of the petitioner in commission of crime is suspicious and no innocent man can be convicted and sentenced on conjectures and surmises. Hence this Special Leave Petition is being filed before this Hon'ble Court. LIST OF DATES & EVENTS 12.10.2001 The prosecutrix lodged FIR no.538 of 2001 at Police Station Civil Lines, District-Bilaspur, C.G. for offences punishable under sections 450, 376 IPC against the petitioner to the effect that on date of incident ie. 12.10.2001 she was sleeping with her children and mother at about 4:00 am, when her mother had gone to attend the call of nature, the petitioner entered into her house and committed sexual intercourse with her. She recognized the petitioner from his voice and also saw the petitioner, when he was fleeing from the verandah. It was further alleged that when her mother Girja Bai (P.W.2) returned, she narrated the ordeal to her. The prosecutrix also intimidated this fact to her mother in law Geeta Bai. When they were going to lodge the report, on the way the appellant met them and told the prosecutrix to compromise but the prosecutrix had lodged the matter vide Exh.P/1. True translated copy of the FIR No.538/2001 dated 12.10.2001 is being annexed herewith and marked as Amnexu: (Page !F to 2) _). 02.09.2002 After completion of the investigation, the police filed final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in connection FIR 5 gsc01.02.2002 02.04.2002 03.04.2002 é No.538/2001 before the court of CJM, Bilaspur, CG. against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376, 450 of IPC. ‘The case was committed to the Session Court, Bilaspur and the case was registered as $.T. No.57/2002 titled as State vs, Sheo Kumar Alias Netaji in the files of the Ld. Trial Court. On pleading non-guilty, the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioner and put him on trial. The Ld. Trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the following dates:- PW-1 Nita Bai, prosecutrix. True translated copy of the deposition of prosecutrix (P.W.1) is being annexed herewith with photocopy of its original and marked as Annexure P-2 (Page??to30), P.W--2, Gitja Bai, mother of prosecutrix. PW-3 Gajanand Sahu, Constable No.532. PW-4 Ku. Sita Devi, witness to seizure of slide of* private part of prosecutrix Exh.P/S. PW-S Shri examined the petitioner and found him capable of doing Bhatia, Medical Officer, who medically intercourse . PW-6 Santosh Kumar Verma, Patwari.07.05.2002 10.06.2002 21.06.2002 17.07.2002 30.07.2002 03.09.2002 P.W.7 Dr. Smt, M. Pandey, Assistant Women Medical Officer, who medically examined the prosecutrix vide report Exh.P/10 and opined the prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse. P.W.8 Shri T.R. Sahu, Sub-Inspector. P.W9 Roshni Vasnik, Sub-Inspector, 1.O., partially investigated the matter. P.W.10 V-K. Mishra, Inspector, 1.0. partially investigated the matter. D.W.1, Priyadas, defense witness. D.W.2, Kishore Kashyap, defense witness. The Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Dist-Bilaspur, CG. pronounced the judgment in $.T, No.57/2002 and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as given below: Conviction ] Sentence Under Section 450 of the Indian | Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years Penal Code and fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2 | months. | Under Seciion 376 of the Indian | Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years Penal Code and fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine further RI. for 2 months. J6 JBoth seniences to run} | | concurrently. | 4 ‘True translated copy of the judgment and order dated 03.09.2002 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Dist.-Bilaspur, C.G. in S.T. No.57/2020 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-3 (Page! to4!). 2002 ‘Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 1081/ 2002 before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2002 passed by the Ld, Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspurr, C.G. in 8.7. No.57/2002 22.05.2020 The Hon’ble High Court vide impugned final judgment and order dated 22.05.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1081/2002 dismissed the appeal which was filed by the petitioner. 02.11.2020 Hence the present Special Leave Petition is being filed.For'Re‘erence Ordinary No!12840/2020 ~ e-Court Fee No. CGCT2650E2019N960 NAFR | HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR. Criminal Appeal No. 1081 of 2002 Judgment Reserved o1 06/02/2020 ered on 22/05/2020 j Judgment del Sheo Kumar alias Netaji S/o Sukhi Ram Suryawanshi, aged 26 years resident of Aazad Chawk Mangla, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Verma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel CAV Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03/09/2002 passed in S.T. No. 57/2002 by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the Appellant has been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of the Rigorous imprisonment for Indian Penal Code seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation Under Section 376 of the Rigorous imprisonment for Indian Penal Code seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.FOr Pasig a ly Nas teowieeu ~ e-Luurt hu 2 Ww, LOL Tee ZU I idol) 2 Facis of the case are that the Prosecutrix (PW) is a major married lady having one child. Her husband was in the jail due to some offence at the time of incident. The Prosecutrix was residing with her mother. On 12/10/2001, she was steeping with her children and mother. At about 4:00 am, when her mother had gone to attend the call of nature, the Appellant entered into their house at about 4:30 am He closed her mouth and committed sexual intercourse with her, She recognized the Appellant from his voice. She also saw the Appellant in light when he was fleeing from her Veranda. Atter some time, Girja Bai (PW2), mother of the Prosecutrix retumed, she narrated the incident to her. The Prosecutrix also intimated this fact to her mother- in-law, Geeta Bai. When, they were going to lodge the report, on the way the Appellant met them and told not to lodge the report. He also told her to compromise the matter, but the Prosecutrix lodged the matter vide Ex.P-1, The Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. ‘Smt. M. Pandey. Her report is Ex.P-10. Statements of the Prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, @ charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Before trial Court, it was defence of the Appellant that Upsarpanch Jwala Prasad used to visit the house of the Prosecutrix, which the Appellant had protested and due to this a false and fabricated report has been lodged at the behest of Jwala Prashad. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, an alternative defence has also been taken by the Appellant that the Prosecutrix had encroached his land and when he told her to vacanté For Reference Ordinary No./12840/2020 ~- e-Court Fee No. CECT2650E2012N960 3 the said land then the Prosecutrix made a false report. Two defence witnesses have been examined. ‘After completion of the trial, the tial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the Appellant without there being any evidence available on record. It has been further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable. There are material contradictions and omissions occurred in the statements of the Prosecutrix and other witnesses. From the statement of the Prosecutrix and other witness, it is established that due to enmity of Appellant with Jwala Prashad, the Prosecutrix has lodged a false and fabricated report at the behest of Jwala Prashad. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the same and supported the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court | have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely. in her court statement, the Prosecutrix (PW1) has deposed that on the date of incident at about 4:00 am, when her mother had gone to attend the call of nature, she slightly closed the door, but not fully. According to this witness, the Appellant entered into her house and closed her mouth by a piece of cloth. He also pressed her neck. SheFor tigierence Urdinary No/1264u/2u20 -- e-Court Fee No. 4 tried to get rid off the Appeliant, but the Appellant forcibly committed Sexual intercourse with her. She further deposed that she tried to raise alarm, but the Appeliant closed her mouth. After the incident, when the Appellant was fleeing from the spot, she tried to catch him According to this witness, when her mother returned she narrated the entire incident to her. Thereafter, when they were going to lodge the report, on the way the Appellant met them and told they have to think before lodging the report. But, she lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1). In her cross-examination, this witness has further deposed that she knows the Appellant by his name and also by face. She further deposed that the Appellant is uncle of her husband. In para 8, she deposed that when the Appellant entered into her house, she did not recognize him, but when the Appeliant bowed and woke up, she recognized him. She denied the suggestion that when her husband was in jail, Upsarpanch Jwala Prashad used to visit her house, 8. Girja Bai (PW2) has supported the above statement of the Prosecutrix and deposed that when she was going to attend the call Of nature, she saw the Appellant standing near Jaitkham. When she returned, the Prosecutrix was weeping. She asked her then the Prosecutrix narrated the entire story to her. This witness has also deposed that when they were going to lodge the report, the Appellant met them on the way and he, indirectly told them to not lodge the report, 9, The Prosecutrix (PW1) was medically examined by Dr. Smt. M Pandey (PW7). Her report is Ex.P-10. She found no injury in theFor Reference Or dinary No/12840/2020 -- e-Court Fee No. (CGCT2650E2019N960 10. ii. Ss private part of the Prosecutrix and stated that hymen of the prosecutrx was already raptured due to marriage. She was habitual of sexual intercourse, therefore, no definite opinion regarding sexual intercourse can be given. Roshni Wasnik (PW) is the witness who recorded FIR (EXP-1) and also partially investigated the matter. She admitted the fact that at the time of recording the FIR, Jwala Prashad was present along with the prosecutix. Inspector V.K. Mishra (PW10) is the witness who also partially investigated the matter. ‘On minute examination of the above evidence, it makes clear that the prosecutrix was major lady at the time of incident. She was living with her mother and children as her husband was in jail, The alleged incident occurred at about 4:30 am. FIR (Ex.P-1) has been lodged immediately after the incident at about 7:00 am. The Prosecutrix in her court statement has categorically stated that the Appellant had entered into her house and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. immediately after the incident, she disclosed this fact to her mother, Girja Bai (PW2). ‘Though Roshni Washnik (PWS) has stated that at the time of recording the FIR Jwala Prashad was present with the Prosecutrix, only on this basis it cannot be said that at the behest of Jwala Prashad the Prosecutrix hac lodged the false report. The Prosecutrix has categorically denied that Jwala Prashad used to visit her house. There is no reliable evidence available on record on the basis of which it can be said that there was enmity between Jwala Prashad and the Appellant. Moreover, from the statement of theCO ———————— Por Helerence Urdinary No.rizsdur2U2u -- e-Court Fee No. Cau i265ue2Ui gNysU 6 Prosecutrix as well as her mother, it is established that when they were going to lodge the report, on the way the Appellant met them and {old them to not lodge the report. This act of the Appellant itself Shows that there was involvement of the Appellant in the alleged crime. The Appellant had taken alternative defence before the trial Court that the Prosecutrix had encroached his land and when he told her to vacant the said land, then she lodged the faise and fabricated Feport, In this regard, no suggestion has been put before the Prosecutrix, therefore, this defence as taken by the Appellant, does not help in the present case. 12. From the entire evidence available on record, | do not find any reason {0 disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix. Thus, in my Considered view, the finding of the trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record. 13. In the result, | do not find any merit in this case. The appeal is dismissed. 14. Records of the court below along with the copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for necessary compliance and action. ‘Sdi/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge PahaOrdinary No./12840/2020 ~ e-Court Fee No. CGCT2650E2019N960 eat {p6/05/2020) fave a7pu On iar wathow (unia OF ih coors efi a HarIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. (S.C.R., Order XXII Rule 2 (1) of 2013 ) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.__ OF 2020 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF POSITION OF PARTIES, Trial Court High Court This Court IN THE MATTER OF :- SHEO KUMAR ALIAS NETAJI S/o Sukhi Ram Suryawanshi, Aged about 26 years, R/o Aazad Chowk Mangla, P.S.-Civil Line Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Accused Appellant Petitioner ‘VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through Station House Officer, P.S.-Civil Line, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Contesting Prosecution Respondent — Respondent TO, THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAq THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH : I I. ‘That the petitioner above-named respectfully submits the present petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the final impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.1081 of 2002, whereby the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.1081/2002, which was filed by the petitioner. QUESTIONS OF LAW: The following questions of law, of substantial importance, arise for the consideration of this Hon'ble Court in the present Special Leave Petition: Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not allowing the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner by relying upon the shaky and unreliable evidence of the prosecutrix dispite the fact the her evidence suffers from omissions and contradictions on material facts? Whether the Hon"ble High Court ought not to have held that the prosecutrix was consenting party as the door was not locked from inside and the petitioner entered the room , removed the clothes of both and committed sexual intercourse and left the room , but the prosecutrix did not resist not cried for help and the possibility is that she might have seen by her relative, therefore to preserve her self , she had made false allegation against the petitioner ? Whether it is safe to convict and sentence the petitioner relying upon the evidence of the prosecutrix, when the identification ofIv. VI. lo the petitioner is suspicious and doubtful and except her no body has seen the petitioner entering and leaving her home ? Whether the prosecution has proved the ingredient of the Sections 450 & 376 Of IPC beyond reasonable doubt , when the identification of the petitioner is doubtful and doctor (PW-&) has given no definite opinion of rape upon the prosecutrix? Whether the solitary testimony of prosecutrix inspire confidence for relying her evidence without corroboration with other prosecution witnesses so as to warrant conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 376 of IPC? Whether the petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt as the identity of the petitioner in commission of crime is suspicious and no innocent man can be convicted and sentenced on conjectures and surmises ? DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2 (2) : That the petitioner states that no other or similar petition seeking, leave to appeal has been filed by him against the final impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.1081 of 2002. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4 : ‘That the Annexure P/I to P/3__ produced alongwith the present Special Leave Petition are true copies of their respective originals and were a part of the pleadings and the records of the case in the High Court below, against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for, in the present Special Leave Petition. GROUNDS : That the petitioner craves for the indulgence of this Hon'bletl Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal, against the impugned final judgment & order, inter-alia, on following amongst other grounds: A. Because the Hon'ble High Court erred in not allowing the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner by relying upon the shaky and unreliable evidence of the prosecutrix despite the fact the her evidence suffers from omissions and contradictions on material facts, therefore the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is likely to be acquitted from the criminal charges. B. Because the Hon’ble High Court ought to have held that the prosecutrix was consenting party as the door was not locked from inside and the petitioner entered the room , removed the clothes of both and committed sexual intercourse and left the room , but the prosecutrix did not resist not cried for help and the possibility is that she might have seen by her relative, therefore to preserve her self , she had made false allegation against the petitioner. C. Because it is not safe to convict and sentence the petitioner relying upon the evidence of the prosecutrix, when the identification of the petitioner is suspicious and doubtful and except her no body has seen the petitioner entering and leaving her home. D. Because the prosecution has not proved the ingredient of the Sections 450 & 376 Of IPC beyond reasonable doubt , when the identification of the petitioner is doubtful and doctor (PW-&) has given no definite opinion of rape upon the prosecutrix. E. Because the solitary testimony of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence for relyingupon her evidence without corroboration with other prosecution witnesses so as toG. H. 12 warrant conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 376 of IPC. Because the petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt as the identity of the petitioner in commission of crime is suspicious and no innocent man can be convicted and sentenced on conjectures and surmises. Because the prosecutrix herself has admitted in evidence that all of first she did not recognize the accused and thereafter she identified him by his voice. It is submitted that in the village there are thousands of men like the petitioner and it is very difficult to believe without disclosing the special characteristics of the voice of the petitioner to be identified or to say she heard the voice of the petitioner several times, so she identified him. Therefore this part of evidence of the prosecutrix is suspicious and not safe to be relied upon. Because the prosecutrix further says that she saw the accused from behind and identified him and named him. It is submitted that neither in FIR nor in police diary statement, the prosecutrix has stated how she identified him by face and name, when the incident occurred at 4 o’clock in the morning and when it is quite dark in month of October. Therefore aiso this part of evidence of the prosecutrix is not safe to be relied upon. Because from the record it appears that there was objection from the members of the society of the prosecutrix herself regarding frequent visit of the Up-sarpanch Jwala Prasad to the house of the prosecutrix and the petitioner had also objected it. Therefore for enmity, the petitioner might have roped in the false case by the prosecutrix in connivance with Up-Sarpanch.GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF: ) & ‘The petitioner craves for the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to grant the interim relief on following amongst other grounds: a. Because the impugned judgment and order is contrary to facts and evidence available on the record and liable to be set aside. s . Because the petitioner has already served 1 year and 3 months of jail sentence out of 7 years and has paid the fine. ¢. Because the petitioner is permanent resident of Aazad Chowk Mangla, P.S.-Civil Line Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) and has moveable and immoveable property at Bilaspur. There is no likelihood of his abscondence from the jurisdiction of trial court. a Because the petitioner is ready to furnish bail and bond and comply with each terms and conditions imposed by this Hon’ ble Court in granting bail. c. Because the petitioner has good case and he hopes to succeed in it. MAIN PRAYER : In the premises set forth above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: a. GRANT Special Leave to Appeal against the final impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2020passed by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.1081 of 2002; andyy b. PASS such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF : It is, further, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- a. GRANT Ad-interim bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Ld. Sessions Judge, District-Bilaspur (CG) in S.T. No.57 / 2002 ( State Vs. Sheo Kumar Alias Netaji) in connection with FIR No.538/2001in connection with FIR No. 538/2001 u/s 450/376 of IPC till the pendency of the present special leave petition; and b. PASS such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY AS DUTY-BOUND Drawn by: Filed by: (MAHESH PANDEY) (SATISH PANDEY) Advocate Advocate for Petitioner DATE OF DRAFTING: +4.10.2020 PLACE : New Delhi FILED ON :2?.11.2020IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1s CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.__ OF 2020 In the matter of : SHEO KUMAR ALIAS NETAJI «Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ..-Respondent CERTIFICATE It is hereby certified that the above Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the Courts whose order is being challenged and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the above Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the documents/annexure attached to the above Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the above Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the petitioner/person authorized by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of this Special Leave Petition. Filed by: Gieovece, | (SATISH PANDEY) Advocate for Petitioner PLACE : New Delhi FILED ON : 02.11.2020IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. Té CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO, __ OF 2020 In the matter of : SHEO KUMAR ALIAS NETAIL . Petitioner VERSUS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH .-Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Shashi Kaushik , W/o Shri Yogesh Kumar Kaushik, Aged 38 years, R/o 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, District-Bilaspur (CG), presently at Bilaspur (C.G.), do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under:~ 1 ‘That I am_pairokar/sister of the petitioner in the instant Special Leave Petition and such acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of other petitioners That the facts stated in the Special Leave Petition in 1 to 8 para in page No. to!®, the Synopsis and List of Dates in pages B tol, , and accompanying Cr.M.P’s in pages4!to44 are true to my personal knowledge and the belief. The Annexures are true copies of its original. Shari DEPONENT VERIFICATION I. the deponent named above, do hereby verify that the contents of the foregoing affidavit in para | and 2 are true to my personal knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. Verified and signed on 247 May of October, 2020 at Bilaspur(C.G.). Shans DEPONENTAPPENDIX iy RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF IPC SECTION 450 OF IPC 450. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life—Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with 1fimprisonment for life], shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. SECTION 376 OF IPC 376. Punishment for rape.— (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. (2) Whoever,— (a) being a police officer commits rape— (i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or (iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or (b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and'8 commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or (c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman’s or children’s institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or (£) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or (g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years. Explanation 1—Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section. Explanation 2.—“Women’s or children’s institution” means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected woman or children or a widows’ home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of woman or children. Explanation 3. “Hospital” means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.] MTRUE COPY//19 ANNEXURE-P/1 PIRST INFORMATION REPORT (Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.) District: Bilaspur, P.S.- Civil Lines, Year 2001, FIR No.: 538/01 Dated: 12.10.2001 Act: Sections: IPC 450, 376 IPC (a) Rojnamcha sanha No. (0) Day of incident: Friday ‘ate: 12.10.2001 Time: 4:30 am in morning {c)_ Intimation to Police Station: 12.10.2001 Time:7:00 hrs ‘Type of information: Oral Place of incident: fa) Distance & direction from the P-S.: West 20 K.M., (b) Address: Village Mangla, house of complainant. (ce) Incase outside the limit of Police Station, then Name of the Police Station: NA. Complainant/ informant: (a) Name: Smt, Nita bai (bo) Husband’s Name : Durgesh Suryavanshi (c)__ Date of Birth: 22 years, (d) Nationality: Indian (e) Passport No. (f Date of issue: (@ Place of issue: (h)_ Occupation: Housewife (h) Address: Village Mangla PS. Civil Lines, Bilaspur. Details of known/suspected/unimown accused with full particulars: Sheokumar Suryavanshi, Village Mangla, Bilaspur Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant: Due to time.10. 1. 12, Qo Particulars of properties of interest Total value of property stolen: Inquest Report/U-D. Case No., if any: F.LR, CONTENTS: [reside at Village Mangla with my mother and 2 year old child and 1 do household works. My husband is undergoing his sentence in jail in a murder case, from whom I have one child. ‘Today night 1 was sleeping with my mother and child, in morning my mother Girja Bai went to attend the call of nature and I was siceping with my child on a bed, the door got opened at about 4:30 am one person entered into the room and gavged my mouth, | tried to stop him by holding his hair but he jumped upon me and lifted up my petticoat and committed forceful sexual intercourse. I was pulling his hair then he told me that he is big politician and I recognized him by his voice that he is Sheokumar Suryavanshi. He fled away after committing rape and I saw him in light near courtyard who was Sheokumar. I shouted then my mother came to whom I narrated about the incident, then my mother told about the incident to my mother in law. Due to rape my petticoat got wet, While I was going to lodge report at police station with my mother Girja Bai and mother in law then Sheokumar came from behind and he stopped us at Homeguard Camp and asked not to lodge the report and to compromise the matter. Then my mother told him that we are going to lodge report and asked him to come to police station then Sheokumar returnedd1 back. | have come alongwith my mother and mother in law to lodge report and Upsarpanch Jwala Prasad is also present at police station, to whom I have narrated about the incident. Proper action be taken. ROAC, I want investigation. 13, Action taken: Since the above report reveals commission of offences under Sections 450, 376 IPC. Registered the case and took up the investigation: S.S. Thakur The F.LR. was read over to the complainant/informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given to the complainant/informant, free of cost. Sd/ illegible Signature of Officer In Charge Name: Roshni Kujur Post:Sub-Inspetor Civil Lines, Bilaspur ROAC: Signature/Thumb impression of the complainant/informant, Forwarded to the Court of C.J.M./ Bilaspur 2 //TRUE TRANSLATED COPY/ /- oR ANENXURE P/ 2 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, BILASPUR, (CHHATTISGARH) ‘THE DEPSOTION OF WITNESS RECORDED IN CAMERA Witness No.1 for prosecution Deposition Taken on 02, April, 2002, Witness’s apparent age 22 years, States on affirmation that My name is Nita Bai W/o Durgesh, occupation Nothing (housewife), Address- Mangla, P.S. Civil Lines, Dist.-Bilaspur. 1.1 know the accused Sheokumar present in the court. The incident is of 4-5 months before. When the incident took place my husband was in jail. I reside at Mangla with my mother. | have one child who stays with me. 2, The incident took place about 4:00 am, I was sleeping with my mother. My mother had gone to attend the call of nature. As soon as my mother went outside I shut the door but I forget to lock it. The placed the wooden pot next to the door. The accused Sheokumar present in the court had entered by opening the door and inserted cloth into my mouth. He strangulated by neck. I also assaulted the accused Sheokumar and tried to get tid of him. The accused removed his underwear, The accused threw my son on a bed.- 123 3, The time when accused entered into the house I was sleeping on a bed with my child and was feeding was child. Accused lifted up my petticoat and removed my underwear. Thereafter he committed rape upon me. He forcefully committed sexual intercourse. My petticoat got wet. When accused was trying to rape me, I continuously tried to stop him. When I tried to scream then accused gagged my mouth. When accused was fleeing | tried to catch him and also abused him. - _T know the accused by name since beginning. Accused fled from the house. When my mother came back I narrated about the whole incident to her. My mother Girja Bai narrated the incident to my mother in law. Thereafter 1 went to police station to make report. While we were heading to make the report, in midway the accused came again and asked me as to where I am going, then I told him to lodge the report. On this he asked to me think before making the report. io | have narrated about the whole incident to police. The report is Exh.P/1 which bears my signatures from A to A part. Police got me medically examined. Police personnel prepared the spot map. Spot map is Exh.P/2 which bears my signatures from A to A part. Patwari also came to village to prepare map of place of incident and spot map was prepared as per my instructions.~ 24 6. Police personnel have seized one orange color petticoat and navy blue color underwear from me vide seizure memo Exh.P/3. A to A of Seizure memo Exh.P/3 contains my signatures. While I was returning back after lodging the report, the mother of accused abused me. 7. | know accused since 10-11 years. I got married 3-4 years ago. In relation the accused is uncle of my husband. My marriage was solemnized with all rituals and customs. Accused is martied and is father of four. I don’t know whether accused also works as agriculturist or not. I know the accused by his name only whereas earlier | was familiar with his face. My mother informed me when she went outside, usually she informs me whenever she goes outside. Where I reside the people normally wake up in morning 4:00 am whereas some people don't wake up. At the time of incident I was at my house with my child. My son was sleeping next to me on the bed. 8.1 have stated about closing of door and placing wooden pot next to door in my report Exh.P/1° and police statement Exh.D/2. If said facts are not mentioned in report and statement then I don’t know the reason. When accused entered into my house I didn’t recognize him. Herself said when he bowed down I recognized him. Now said that 1 recognized the accused when he stood.10. 12. 2 [have stated in my police statement and report that accused inserted cloth into my mouth and he asked me to think once before making the report. If such facts are not mentioned in my report Exh.P/1 and statement Exh.D/1, then I don’t know the reason. The distance between my house and house of accused is two furlong, I visited police station two times. Only once the police inquired from me. My matrimonial house and accused's house are situated in same village. When I screamed I said that who is holding me, I said it only once; thereafter the accused gagged my mouth, No one came when I screamed. The accused didn’t utter a word when I screamed. Ihave not stated in my report and statement that accused had told me that he is politician. My husband is in jail in a murder case. It is incorrect to say that my husband was not in jail and accused used to visit my house when my house was in jail. My matrimonial and in laws house are situated in same village. I do not reside with my mother in law, I reside with my mother. It is wrong to say that when my husband was in jail Jwala Prasad used to visit my house. We went to lodge the report first, thereafter Jwala Prasad came to police station. It is wrong that there was enmity between accused and Jwala Prasad since the time of election and Jwala Prasad threatened14 26 the accused. It is wrong to say that under the influence of Jwala Prasad I have lodged the report against accused. It is wrong that on instructions of Jwala Prasad I have lodged the report. It is wrong to say that on date of incident the accused hadn't come to my house. It is wrong that 1 am falsely implicating the accused. It is wrong to say that I don’t scream when accused lifted up my petticoat and removed my underwear. Herself said 1 screamed. Accused took 4-5 minutes in doing wrong with me. I recognized the accused when I caught hold of collar of accused, thereafter when accused was fleeing I recognized him. . It is wrong that I didn’t recognize the accused. It is wrong to say that on instructions of my mother and Jwala Prasad I am falsely implicating the accused. ROAC Sd/- Sessions Judge Bilaspur, C.G. //TRUE TRANSLATED COPY/ /FOR COPYING FEES ONLY ~ Ly Tes02.2.000299 T a = “ers. an . ‘Witness No. ", .. Deposition taken | this” Sots on afemationMy nae is Sonot asdcess emt Mecgeceee Rhee APRIL coerce ga eget Re R EEE ATA nt 02, ary AEST ay 200204 endure eo 22.08... aes sae ther ered sere wn tice POT TEE a resins ok . ceria earner PROTEC easeeecnsesetven cea gig a arte geren aretet Tregire at eecrach g | ae reer ure a ara & | fam ag at wT B ae weed ME Te ATE #y cear 8 ba 3k ayy it abr Nett ae are cect oF ATT ee vi ster woor Mp Bae Mr RY are et ceo Bt : i fat grees ote 4.00 SEAT BH sett aS aN ee ee ae vee mea & fgg nf A oak ect at oe OT flea OT TG eT ET pear or 1 ars a aM Bae. a oF | ere acron sTe AUATE wear ehase GES see aor wer AE ge Hay ot ge Tear | ey eT aye mh at quran 1 28 arch Aeeagare ot aera Br cer ash at GET ar gra for | ach are A och sgh are Tear | 3 wo SY a apo 8 eee Pe | — bu Beer game aretha gar ser ao aE A OY bard at gtr ote emt ot ge tear cet ar arete 3 AE aver of oT ‘peur ar wag BY trove tart | ga are aed RE are earcere Fe | srretet 3 gy tere Gch Bt one ot AY tee ged oh ate HW sme RE are i soar 1 ter tevate atrar at oar er ye arate RE aren geT STHver ar ot # ay areet Gary wr eras gare ae cet ott 1 oer Pay ST gara of at aretut & at de ob gar fear | aretet ay a mer at 34 st wey or At gura fear cer sat amet Mb fear ory iu B oretat ab & ara ob cet eh ort op aretat oe} are omer | det ant Bee ere ar oc 3A a we cea scar or 1 ae 83 a8 of Pear arg at, aren ae eh aA eh ag are ab over ach dear sqrar ur | fie HO Pout eek af ob | om ea ata feat see or v8 Sat are et oe aretet or: amar ate sat yey wer Pe Gr ser Sr tet et 8 wer fe fete ack ar eet Egat ge oe gh wer fe > fartd ae} 3 veh ate mae at as 38 ore omer Cfra ot wept etsy} art 8 aang oe at Gren Proms mf Peat govto-1 & fib a A a ary ae at eR ey gh oto! ara her steeet garfear sever ary gfe are & aeareN er awa sarar ar i ater ver goxto-2 @ fat a § or Aor oe AY eee BI aro geared ah oy Y ecarea or ser sary omer ar aur 2eb ware agare SENTRA BT AM EATET TAT ar | fot Tire are t gorto-s & afer aoe 8 agar YUN ew ant oto Set or detwte mar a Ret wy gue A aT se fer ea 1 Pe ae jorto-3 8 a Nx Ant oe At amet 2) oe Y feuté wey 8 are oe ara sng’ ah ab aretet at ar ath AR are are ee Per er Thereheet rer a strortoge afearcar areh arétet 1 7k artagen ot Fo tomnt ara & ara 2b eh ret RR ria afiseare ara at mar 1 rfiggeer at fn ar fet 8 arar mmr & 1 der faare Rota se are gt chia feare & aret evr ary xfsyect ometiger 8 rear sah ore wed BL sage amy eer or orm aor BL gael op vo