17312 NAFR • Rita Ekka, D/o Shri Jagarnath Ekka, aged about 21 years, Caste v. • State of Chhattisgarh, Through – Police Station Balrampur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.04.17 10:55:37 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2012 2025:CGHC:17312 NAFR • Rita Ekka, D/o Shri Jagarnath Ekka, aged about 21 years, Caste – Uranw, R/o Village Maharajganj Tola, Makyathi Para, Police Station – Balrampur, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh, --- Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through – Police Station Balrampur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent AND Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2012 • Sevna Ram Bhuihar, S/o Nanka Ram Bhuihar, aged about 24 years, R/o Chirkoma Kharatola , P.S. Balrampur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh, ---Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O., P.S. Balrampur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent For Applicant (CRR No.47/2012)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate For Applicant (CRR No.126/2012) : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 15/04/2025 1. Since both revisions arise out of same incident, therefore, they are
Decision
being disposed of by this common order. 2. The present revisions filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.01.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.73/2010 (preferred by Rita Ekka) and 24.01.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.77/2010 (preferred by Sevna Ram Bhuihar) by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.), wherein the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.118/2008 convicting the accused/applicants under Section Section 317 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for 3-3 years each and fine of Rs.500-500/- each, in default thereof, additional S.I. for 6-6 months each. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.03.2008, the complainant Tijeet has lodged a written complaint in Police Station Balrampur, District – Surguja stating that on 08.03.2008 at about 05:00 PM, when she was going to her parental house, on way, she heard cries of a child near Khand Nalah and upon search she found a newly born baby girl lying on the spot. Thereafter, she took the said child to her parental house where she cleaned her and fed her. It is further alleged that some unknown person has left the new born girl child unprotected in the abandoned condition after birth and has left away. 3 On the above background, on the next day, the FIR (Ex.P/13) was lodged on the basis of written complaint against unknown person. 4. During investigation, blood stained clothes were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/1) from the house of Parwati (PW-01), mother of the complainant. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/6 and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the present applicants before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. The accused/applicants abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, these revisions. 6. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicants submit that the learned Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicants for the aforesaid offence. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused Rita Ekka submits that though she has given birth to a child but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the applicant Rita Ekka has given birth to the alleged child who has been recovered from an open place. He further submits that Parvati (PW-01) who works as mid-wife (dai), also helped in delivering the child of Rita Ekka has also not stated that the alleged child belongs to her (Rita). Further, the complainant of the case, Tiljeet, who found the alleged child, has not been examined by the 4 prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicants that applicants be acquitted of the charge leveled against them. 7. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while supporting the impugned judgment, submits that both the learned Courts have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that Parvati (PW-01) is the mother of the complainant Tiljeet. Parwati works as mid-wife (dai) and she has helped accused Rita Ekka in delivering the child. This witness in her Court statement has stated that the applicant Sevna Ram had come to her house along with his wife (Rita Ekka) for helping them in delivering the child. She further stated that applicant Rita has given birth to a girl child, thereafter, the applicants left her house. This apart, the police has not recorded the statement of this witness. However, this witness in her cross-examination, has admitted that the girl child, who is alleged to have been recovered and was aged about only two days, was brought by her daughter Tiljeet to her house. She further admitted that on the date of incident, one Ram Girwar of village Sendari has come to her house along with his wife for delivery of their child and after delivery, they had left her house. She further admitted that the accused/applicants had also left the house after taking the child. From the statement of this witness, it does not appear that this witness 5 herself made delivery of the alleged girl child brought by her daughter, inasmuch as there is inconsistency in her statement with respect to delivery of the child. 10.Thepupal (PW-02) who in his Court Statement has stated that he knows the applicants. This witness further stated that Parvati (PW-01) has not stated anything about the alleged incident. Dr. R.S. Markam (PW-04) in his statement has deposed that on 09.03.2008 one newly born girl child was brought before him for examination and as per the examination report (Ex.P/4), the age of the girl child was about 2-3 days, weighing 2.750 gm and all the organs were well functioning. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not done any test over the girl child with that of her so called parents (accused/applicants) which could prove that the alleged child was of the applicants. 11.In view of the above discussions, it is clear that Parvati (PW-01) has not specifically stated that the child brought by her daughter, belongs to the accused/applicants. Further, as per the prosecution case, clothes of applicant Rita Ekka were seized vide Ex.P/1 on the basis of her memorandum statement (Ex.P/2) but it has failed to prove that the alleged child was that of applicant Rita Ekka. Moreover, Dr. R.S. Markam (PW-04) who medically examined the newly born child, has not conducted any test which could show that the said child belongs to the accused/applicants. 12.Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the statements of the Parvati (PW-01), Dr. R.S. Markam (PW-04) coupled with the contents of FIR (Ex.P/13) lodged by the complainant 6 Tiljeet (not examined), the prosecution case appears to be suspicious and not reliable. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to discharge its duty by adducing cogent and clinching evidence to show the complicity of the applicants in the crime in question. 13.For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicants for the aforesaid offence. 14.Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 31.03.2010 and that of Appellate Court dated 04.01.2012 and 24.01.2012 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them by extending them the benefit of doubt. 15.In the result, both the criminal revisions are allowed. 16.Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Prakash Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge