Raipur C.G v. The State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Sarseeva, District Raipur
Case Details
1 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.22 17:06:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:13727 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 692 of 2008 Chaitan @ Chetan, S/o Visambhar @Pukwa, Caste-Aghariya, R/o Village-Gagori, P.S. Sarseeva, Distric-Raipur C.G ... Appellant versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Sarseeva, District Raipur (C.G.) For Appellant ... Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (21.03.2025) 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-06- 2008, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.), in Sessions Case No.04/2008, whereby the appellant-accused has been 2 convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 313 of the IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default thereof, RI for 1 more year 2. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court found the prosecutrix (PW-6) to be a consenting party and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per prosecution story, prosecutrix (PW-6), aged 20 years, is a resident of Village Gagori. About one and a half years ago, in the month of Phagun, she had gone to Gagori Nala for defecation. It was around 6:00 PM in the evening when the accused/appellant arrived there. He forcefully threw the prosecutrix to the ground, removed her clothes, and raped her. When she tried to scream, the accused covered her mouth with his hand and threatened to kill her. A few days later, the accused again caught hold the prosecutrix near the Nala, threatened to kill her if she did not comply, and told her to come whenever he called. He then raped her again. After this, the accused deceived her by promising marriage and continued to exploit her sexually, due to which she became three months pregnant. The accused then took the prosecutrix to his house, but his family members did not allow her to enter. Thereafter, the prosecutrix informed her mother about the incident, then her mother called a village meeting involving the village Sarpanch, village Kotwar, and other villagers. In that meeting, the villagers told the accused to accept the prosecutrix as his wife and keep her at his house. The accused then took the prosecutrix home. Later, the accused 3 gave the prosecutrix some medicine, which caused her miscarriage. After that, he started harassing her and eventually abandoned her. Since the Pola festival, she has been living at her mother’s house. Due to the accused’s refusal to live with her, the victim lodged a written complaint at Sarseeva Police Station on 02/12/2007. Tthe police visited the crime scene and prepared a site map. The prosecutrix underwent a medical examination, and a doctor’s report was obtained. The prosecutrix’s and the accused’s undergarments were seized. After recording witness statements and completing the investigation, the accused was arrested and charge sheet was filed against him. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents. Statements of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied circumstances appearing against him in prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being any clinching evidence available on record. He further submits that there is no material available on record on the basis of which it can be established that the prosecutrix (PW-6) had an abortion done by the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt. Hence, the appellant may be acquitted of the charges leveled against him by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the conclusion given by the trial court regarding conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on sufficient and reliable evidence, which does not require any interference. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable, hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The prosecutrix (PW-6) has supported the prosecution case in her Court statement that when she was 03 months pregnant, the appellant gave her Rs. 1500/- and asked her to get an abortion done by getting an injection from a doctor, but even after the injection, the abortion did not happen. There is no other supporting evidence in this regard which confirms the fact that the appellant gave Rs. 1500/- and the prosecutrix (PW-6) got an injection from a doctor to get an abortion done. The name of the alleged doctor has also not been disclosed nor has he/she been examined. 10.Similarly, the prosecutrix (PW-6) has stated that the appellant took her to Delhi and got her abortion done there. But apart from the oral statement of the prosecutrix, her mother (PW-7) and village resident Shambhu Nath (PW-3), there is no medical evidence available on record to prove that the prosecutrix (PW-6) had an abortion done when she was three months pregnant. No medical evidence has been produced to prove that the prosecutrix's abortion was done and there is also lack of clear evidence that the said abortion was done by the appellant. 11. In such a situation, the conviction of the appellant by the 5 trial Court is based on a presumption. The said presumption is not a valid presumption and there is lack of facts and clear evidence in the case, hence the conviction of the appellant under section 313 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence in question is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 13. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham