High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.16 18:08:41 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 30 of 2016 2025:CGHC:17410-DB NAFR State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant Mahadev Tandon, S/o Ganesh Tandon, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Tekadih, Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For State/Appellant : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, P.L. For Respondent : Ms. Smita Mishra, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 16/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/Appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30/10/2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District- 2 Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.01/2013, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “”the POCSO Act”). 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 25/04/2013, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station- Chhuikhadan, alleging therein, that on the previous day, i.e. 24/04/2013, at about 05:00 P.M., when she went to attend the call of nature, the respondent came and caught hold of her and committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened to kill, if she disclosed the incident to anyone else and fled away when she shouted. It is stated further that since she was in fear, therefore, she could not have dare to lodge the report on 24/04/2013. Based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the respondent in connection with Crime No.82/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and during investigation, the prosecutrix was examined medically by Dr. Leela Ramteke (PW-12), where no internal injury was found, nor any symptoms were found regarding recent sexual intercourse upon her and after examining the statement of prosecutrix and others and, that by completing the usual investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Khairagarh against the respondent for the offence mentioned hereinabove and the matter was thereafter committed to the learned trial Court, where the charge has been framed against 3 him under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and the charges, so framed, were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents, while none was examined by him in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is not the author of the alleged offence and, accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence mentioned hereinabove and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the State/appellant submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime is, apparently, contrary to the materials available on record, in-as-much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. Ms. Smita Mishra, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties and 4 perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 25/04/2013, wherein, it was alleged that on 24/04/2013 at about 05:00 P.M., she had gone to attend the call of nature, but the respondent came and after caught hold of her committed forcefully the sexual intercourse with her and since she was threatened by him to kill, therefore, she has not lodged the report on the date of the commission of the alleged incident. 9. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and, in her statement, though, it was stated that on the fateful day, the respondent had committed the alleged offence when she went for attending the call of nature, and fled away when she shouted and failed to lodge the report on the said fateful day because of threat of her life made by him. It, however, appears from her testimony, particularly at para 14 that, in fact a quarrel was taken place on the said fateful day between her father and the respondent, along with other villagers, namely, Aatma and Ganesh and lodged the report on the date of the incident, before the Police Station- Chhuikhadan at 05:30 P.M. It, thus, appears that on the alleged fateful day, she had gone to the concerned Police Station, but has not lodged the report against the respondent that he has committed 5 sexual intercourse with her forcefully. Had she been under the threat, she would not have gone to the concerned Police Station. Therefore, it cannot be said that since she was in fear, the report was not lodged on the said day. Besides, her brother-Neelkanth (PW-6) has stated specifically at paragraph 6, that they had gone to the concerned Police Station without any fear and, admitted the fact that on the said day, his sister has not lodged any report regarding the alleged incident of sexual intercourse committed upon her by the respondent. Not only this, the father (PW-3) of the prosecutrix, as reflected from para-1 of his statement, was also aware regarding the alleged incident, but, no report has, however, been lodged by him as well on the said fateful day. It is to be seen further that when she was examined by Dr. Leela Ramteke (PW-12), but neither any internal injury was found, nor any symptoms were shown regarding the recent sexual intercourse upon her. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent was involved in connection with the alleged crime. 10. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prashant