Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.25 16:23:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:48929-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 14 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1 - Basant Kumar @ Basantlal S/o Rajendra Panika, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Majholi, Police Station Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Meera Devi W/o Anand Panika, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Koda, Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manohar Panika, S/o Nanhu Panika, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Dhawalpur, Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajendra Panika S/o Manohar Panika, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Majholi, Police Station Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate ... Respondents DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 24/09/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality 2 and propriety of the judgment dated 13/05/2015 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989] Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.23/2013, whereby, the respondent No.1-Basant Kumar @ Basantlal has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376/34 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as “the SC/ST Act”), while, the respondent No.2- Smt. Meera Devi wife of Anand Panika, respondent No.3- Manohar Panika and respondent No.4-Rajendra Panika have been acquitted, under Section 368 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Section 366-A and 368 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and, Section 366-A of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, respectively. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, on 27/02/2013, a missing report (Ex.P/22C) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix before the Police Station- Khadgawan, District- Korea (C.G.), alleging inter alia, that his daughter has gone somewhere else since the night of 24/02/2013, but did not return and despite of search being made by him from his relatives, he could not find her and, based upon his alleged report, an investigation was carried out and, during the course of investigation, she was recovered from the house of respondent No.2- Smt. Meera Devi wife of Anand Panika on 04/03/2013 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Bhaiya Lal and Rajkumar vide Recovery Panchnama (Ex.P/1). The prosecutrix was examined 3 medically by Dr. Shalini Sharma (PW-11) and, according to her report (Ex.P/3), she was found to be habitual in sexual intercourse and according to Dakhil Khariz Register (Ex.P/16C), her date of birth has been shown to be 10/03/2000. During the course of further enquiry, the undergarment of the prosecutrix was recovered on 04/03/2013 vide Ex.P/4, while the undergarment of respondent No.1- Basant Kumar on 06/03/2013 vide Ex.P/9 and were sent for chemical examination where human sperm was found to be depicted on those articles vide FSL Report (Ex.P/29). After completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court and based upon the materials, the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence as mentioned herein-above, who have denied the same and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents, apart from Articles A/1 and A/2, while 03 witnesses and 6 documents have been produced by the respondents in their defence. 4. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court while placing reliance upon the letter dated 12/07/2014 (Ex.D/4) duly admitted by the prosecutrix in her testimony, held the respondents innocent and, accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Arpit Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not guilty for the commission of the alleged crime, is 4 apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the prosecutrix has left her home on 24/02/2013 and did not return, owing to which, her father has lodged the missing report (Ex.P/22C) on 27/02/2013 and, during the course of the enquiry, she was, alleged to have, recovered from the house of the respondent No.2-Smt. Meera Devi on 04/03.2013 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Bhaiya Lal (PW-7) and one Rajkumar as evidenced by the Recovery Panchnama marked as Ex.P/1. Although, it was alleged by the prosecution that the prosecutrix was recovered as such on 04/03/2013 but, its attesting witness, namely, Bhaiya Lal (PW-7) in his evidence has, however, stated that she was not recovered from the house of said Smt. Meera Devi and, even the prosecutrix (PW-1) herself was unable to identify her (Smt. Meera Devi), as reflected from her testimony. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was recovered from the house of the said respondent on 04/03/2013. 9. In order to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix, a Dakhil Khariz 5 Register marked as Ex.P/16C was placed on record and according to it, date of birth of the prosecutrix was shown to be as 10/03/2000. The said document was proved by Manju Singh (PW-6), the teacher of the concerned school, but a bare perusal of her testimony would reveal the fact that the alleged entry was neither made in her presence, nor any document pertaining to her date of birth is attached with the alleged register, or under what basis, her date of birth has been recorded as 10/03/2000. It reveals further from her testimony that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was entered at the instance of one Smt. Jamuna Devi, but, she was, however, not examined by the prosecution. In view of such circumstances, it cannot be said based upon the alleged Dakhil Khariz Register (Ex.P/16C), that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 10/03/2000 as alleged by the prosecution and particularly, when the father of her has admitted in his evidence that the birth-date of her has not been recorded in the Kotwari Register and, the said fact was also reflected from the certificate (Ex.P/26) issued by the Kotwar of the concerned village. In view thereof, the trial Court has not erred in arriving to a conclusion that she was not minor on the alleged fateful day. 10. It is to be seen further that, on account of the alleged incident, the undergarment of the prosecutrix was recovered on 04/03/2013 vide Ex.P/4, while the undergarment of the respondent No.1-Basant Kumar on 06/03/2013 vide Ex.P/9 and were sent for chemical examination and, according to the FSL Report (Ex.P/29), the semen was found in the alleged undergarment recovered from the prosecutrix, as well as, 6 from the said respondent. Although, the FSL Report (Ex.P/29) reveals the alleged fact as such but, in order to ascertain as to whether the alleged semen of the said respondent was found in the alleged article of the prosecutrix or, was it matched, but, the same was, however, not established by the prosecution as required under Section 53-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130, wherein it was held at paragraph 44 as under:- “44. Now, after the incorporation of Section 53-A in the Criminal Procedure Code w.e.f. 23.06.2006, brought to our notice by learned counsel for the respondent State, it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of cases, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in Cr. P.C., the prosecution could have still resorted to this procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of the appellant with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a foolproof case, but they did not do so, thus they must face the consequences.” 11. Applying the aforesaid principle to the case in hand and, in absence of the examination of the DNA test of the respondent No.1 as required under Section 53-A of Cr.P.C., no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the alleged FSL Report (Ex.P/29) and the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in not placing its reliance upon the said report. 12. Pertinently, to be noted here further that after the completion of the 7 examination of the prosecutrix, a letter dated 12/07/2014, written by her, was placed by the respondents in their defence on 07/08/2014 and which was admitted on record on 03/09/2014. It is to be seen further that since the alleged letter written by the prosecutrix was required to be confronted with her, an application for re-examination of the prosecutrix was, therefore, made under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. but the same was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 09/10/2014. A revision, being Criminal Revision No.901/2014, was preferred by the respondents and, this Court vide order dated 12/12/2014 passed in the said revision, has directed for the re-examination of the prosecutrix in exercise of the powers enumerated under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and, in pursuance thereof, the prosecutrix was re-examined on 14/01/2015. 13. A bare perusal of her testimony, recorded on 14/01/2015, would reveal the fact that the alleged letter, dated 12/07/2014 (Ex.D/4) was duly admitted by her and it reveals further from her testimony, particularly paragraph 17, that whatever deposed by her was under the pressure of her father and, it reveals further that because of her wrong statement made as such, she went to the jail for meeting with the respondent No.1 for confessing her guilt. The contents made in the alleged letter (Ex.D/4) is to be seen at this juncture, which reads as its verbatim, as under :- "आदरणी(cid:5)य बसं(cid:9)त भा(cid:12)ईय(cid:12) ैሰ(cid:15) अपने(cid:19) पिपत(cid:12) के(cid:19) दब(cid:12)व ैሰ(cid:19) आकेर आपके(cid:19) खि(cid:24)ला(cid:12)प झू(cid:27)टी(cid:29) रिरप(cid:31)टी था(cid:12)ने(cid:19) ैሰ(cid:19) 8 लिला(cid:24) व(cid:12)ई था(cid:5) और उनेके(cid:19) दब(cid:12)ओ सं(cid:19) बय(cid:12)ने भा(cid:5) द(cid:29) ूሺ’ A आप त(cid:31) जा(cid:12)नेत(cid:19) है* पिके ैሰ(cid:19)र(cid:12) और आपके(cid:19) ब(cid:5)च के(cid:31)ई शा(cid:12)र(cid:5)रिरके संम्ब् नेहै/ था(cid:12) ैሰ* आपके(cid:31) अपने(cid:12) भा(cid:12)ई ैሰ(cid:12)नेत(cid:5) ूሺ’ A ैሰ0झू(cid:19) बहुत ुሩ3(cid:24) है* पिके ैሰ(cid:19)र(cid:19) बय(cid:12)ने के(cid:19) चलात(cid:19) आपके(cid:31) संजा(cid:12) है(cid:31) जा(cid:12)एगी(cid:5) ैሰ0झू(cid:19) ैሰ(cid:19)र(cid:5) आत्ैሰ(cid:12) सं(cid:19) ग्ला(cid:12)ने(cid:5) है(cid:31) रहै(cid:5) है* इसं लिलाए ैሰ* न्य(cid:12)य(cid:12)लाय ैሰ* जाजा सं(cid:12)हैब के(cid:19) प(cid:12)सं आव(cid:19)दने ला(cid:19)केर गीई था(cid:5) ला(cid:19)पिकेने जाजा सं(cid:12)हैब ैሰ(cid:19)र(cid:12) आव(cid:19)दने नेहै/ लिलाए इसं लिलाए ैሰ* इसं प्ቔ के(cid:19) ैሰ(cid:12)ध्यैሰ सं(cid:19) आपसं(cid:19) ैሰ(cid:12)फ़ी= ैሰ(cid:12)(cid:9)गी रहै(cid:5) ूሺ’ A ैሰ(cid:12)फ़ी केर द(cid:29)जिजाएगी(cid:12) A है(cid:31) संके(cid:19) त(cid:31) अपने(cid:5) बहैने के(cid:31) आपके= बहैने …………………. 12/7/14 " 14. A bare perusal of the contents made in the alleged letter duly accepted by her would, thus reveal the fact that the statement whatever given by her was made due to the pressure of her father and because of that, she approached the respondent No.1- Basant Kumar before the concerned Jail in order to confess her guilt. The trial Court, after taking note of the alleged letter has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 15. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant