Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh v. Vijay Yadav, S
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.28 11:58:52 +0530 2025:CGHC:28396-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 72 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. .. Appellant versus Vijay Yadav, S/o Shri Bechan Yadav, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Baserakhurd, Police Station Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 27/06/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 25/03/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court 2 (under POCSO Act), Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No.15/2015, whereby, the respondent- Vijay Yadav has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also under Sections 4, 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as “the POCSO Act”). 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, a written report (Ex.P/2) was lodged by the prosecutrix, alleging therein, that the respondent, who is the son-in-law of her mother’s sister, often used to come to his in-laws’ house and in the month of June, 2014, he came to his in-laws’ house and at the said particular time, he came to her house and said that, her aunt has called her, owing to which, she went along with him and stayed in her aunt’s house, where the respondent came to her, when she was sleeping in the night at about 10:00 to 11:00 P.M. and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. It is alleged further that on account of social fear and due to family relations, she did not disclose the alleged incident to anyone and, after 6 months, when she became pregnant, has narrated the incident to her mother and other of her family members. 3. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P/3) was registered on 03/02/2015 by the concerned Police Station against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under 3 Section 376 of IPC and also under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and, during the course of investigation, she was examined medically by Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-5), who has submitted her report (Ex.P/11) and, in order to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix, the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/13) was seized from the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Piparoul vide Ex.P/12 and, after completing the usual investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Special Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur of District- Balrampur against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also under Sections 4, 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act in connection with the Crime No.16/2015 and charges were framed based upon the alleged offences, which were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents, apart from Article “A” copy of mark-sheet of the prosecutrix, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that prosecutrix was not only major, on the date of incident but was also a consenting party with regard to the incident occurred in the month of June, 2014 and, accordingly, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the 4 alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent was not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix and her parents vis-a-vis, the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/13), has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 8. We have heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. The respondent is charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also under Sections 4, 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act with regard to the incident occurred in the month of June, 2014, as alleged by the prosecutrix in her written report, marked as Ex.P/2. It is alleged by the prosecution that, the respondent, who is the son-in-law of the prosecutrix mother’s sister, came on the said fateful day, when she was sleeping in her aunt’s house and has 5 committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. 10. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and a bare perusal of her statement would show that her relation with him was made on her own consent and was not made by him on the pretext of any allurance and was made at her own wish. That apart, Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-5), who examined her has not found any external or internal injury on her body. It appears further from the statement of her mother (PW-1) that, she was not informed by her regarding the alleged act and has disclosed the alleged fact only when he refused to keep her. In view of such circumstances, it is apparent that the alleged relation of the prosecutrix was made with the respondent with her own consent. 11. It is now to be seen, as to whether the prosecutrix was minor at that particular time or not and, for which, Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/13) was produced after recovering the same from the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Piparoul. The alleged document was proved by one Jayprakash Ekka (PW-6), who stated that, after seeing the alleged document (Ex.P/13), it cannot be said that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 02/06/1999, as mentioned therein. Besides, according to the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-1), who was examined on 13/05/2015, her daughter/prosecutrix was 20 years old and has failed to state the actual date of her birth and, the father of the prosecutrix, who was 6 examined as PW-3 has stated in his cross-examination that, he has not prepared the birth certificate of his daughter, nor has note down her date of birth. He was, thus, not aware regarding the date of birth of his daughter. In view of such circumstances, it appears that the prosecutrix was not minor at the relevant point of time, when the alleged incident was occurred in the month of June, 2014. 12. In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 13. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prashant