High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.04.02 15:34:41 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR ACQA No. 154 of 2018 Judgment Reserved on 28.03.2025 Judgment Delivered on 02.04.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. versus ...Appellant
Legal Reasoning
• Pradeep Bhagat, S/o Late Shri Dineshwar Bhagat, aged about 28 Years, R/o Duldula, Police Station Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. CAV Judgment 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 27.09.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Jashpur, District Jashpur, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.42/2017, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Sections 376(1) & 506-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.12.2016, victim (PW-1), aged about 28 years, lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) stating therein that since July, 2014, she was in love with accused/respondent and on the 2 pretext of marriage, accused/respondent established physical relations with her on many occasions, due to which, she got pregnant in the year 2016 and when victim told accused/respondent to marry her, he refused and told her to abort the pregnancy and also threatened her to life. Then, she informed about the incident to her parents. On the basis of written report (Ex.P-1), aforesaid offences were registered against the accused/respondent. 3. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4 and after obtaining consent letter vide Ex.P-3, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination whereupon PW-5 Dr. M.S. examined her and opined that prosecutrix is habitual to sexual intercourse and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-13. Accused-respondent was taken into custody. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-respondent before the concerned trial Court under Section 376(1) and 506-B of IPC. Accused- respondent abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 17 documents connecting the respondent/accused to the crime in question. However, in his defence, respondent/accused has examined none and not exhibited any document. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charges leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of said 3 charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is evidence available on record to show that on the pretext of marriage, respondent/accused established physical relations with the victim on many occasions and when she got pregnant, accused/respondent refused to marry her and told her to abort the pregnancy and also threatened her to life and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and perused the material available on record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. Case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statement of victim (PW-1) who has stated that since 2016, she was in love with accused/respondent and from then, they established physical relations which led to her pregnancy, but on the contrary, in written report (Ex.P-1), it is mentioned that she was in love with respondent since 2014. 4 She has further stated that she had not informed her family members about her love affair with accused/respondent and when she conceived, then she informed her family members. Thereafter, her family members and community members told her that accused/respondent did not belong to her caste and society will not permit her to marry with respondent and they forcibly took her to police station to lodge report against the accused/respondent, but police did not lodge any report as there was love affair between her and accused/respondent. After that, on 28.12.2016, her family members and community members took her to Jashpur to a lawyer, got the papers typed there and obtained her signature on that paper and she does not know what was written thereon. Thereafter, they went to the SP Office and submit those typed papers. However, this witness (PW-1 victim) has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and in cross-examination, she also denied that whenever accused/respondent met her, he used to establish physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. She further denied that in the year 2014, she told the accused/respondent to marry her and he refused. She also denied that accused/respondent used to establish physical relations with her by assuring that he would marry her and accept her as his wife. She also denied that accused/respondent used to threaten her for performing marriage with someone, due to which, she did not inform about the incident to her family members. Since the victim / PW-1 herself has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution by stating that accused/respondent has not established physical relations with her forcibly or against her will nor threatened her in any manner, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, was justified 5 in acquitting the accused / respondent herein of the said charges, which does not call for any interference. 10. Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh