Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 VIVEK RAWAT Digitally signed by VIVEK RAWAT NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Xyz Nil ... Petitioner ACQA No. 249 of 2024 versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Prafull Kumar Toppo S/o Bilchus Toppo Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Maheshpur, P.S. Batauli, District Sarguja, At Present, R/o Community Health Care, Housing Colony, Bilha, P.S. Bilha, District ... Respondent(s) Bilaspur (C.G.) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
:Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate appears For State/Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 along with Shri Rohan Shukla, Advocate. :Shri Ruhul Ameen, P.L. None. DB:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per-Sanjay S.Agrawal, J. 30.01.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC, ST (Prevention of 2 Atrocities) Act, Additional Session Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.125/2023, whereby, the Respondent No.2- Prafull Kumar Toppo has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 376 (2) (n) and 506 Part-II of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, a written report (Ex.P-1/undated) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station-Bilha, alleging, inter-alia, that the Respondent No.2 has committed sexual intercourse with her on 18.10.2020 on the pretext of marriage and has made the alleged relations for the period of more than 3 years and has refused to marry with her and instead, trying to marry with someone else and, when she objected, he abused her while using filthy words and threatened to kill. Based upon the said information, an F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) was registered on 15.05.2023 at 13:15 hours against the said Respondent, with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376, 294 and 506 I.P.C. 3. After recording the statement of the prosecutrix and others and after due investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted his charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate-Bilha, District- Bilaspur, against the said Respondent, with regard to the offence mentioned herein above, who, in turn, has committed the matter to the learned trial Court, where, the charges have been framed against the said Respondent, under Sections 376 (2) (n), 294 and 506 Part-II of I.P.C., which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the said Respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents, while none was examined by the said Respondent, in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, observed that she is the consenting party and, therefore, the said Respondent cannot be attributed with regard to the commission of the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/prosecutrix submits that the finding of the trial Court holing that the said Respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to law, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State/Respondent No.1 has supported the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant/Prosecutrix. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that an undated written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station, Bilha, District-Bilaspur, wherein, it has been alleged 4 that the Respondent No.2-Prafull Kumar Toppo, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse with her on 18.10.2020 in her aunt’s quarter and made the alleged relations for over more than 3 years and when she requested to marry, it was denied by him and trying to marry with someone else and when she objected, he abused her while using filthy words and threatened to kill, owing to which, an F.I.R (Ex.P-2) was registered on 15.05.2023. The Respondent No.2, has, thus, been charge sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 376 (2) (n) and 506 Part-II of IPC. 10. In order to attribute the said respondent for the commission of the alleged crime, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish the said fact. However, it appears from perusal of the said Written Report (Ex.P-1), that the alleged incident was taken place for the first time on 18.10.2020 on the pretext of marriage and was continued for the period of more than three years, but no report was lodged by the prosecutrix immediately thereafter. That apart, it reveals further from her (PW-1) testimony, particularly, paragraph 5 that in the year 2021, when she requested him to marry with her, it was informed by him that a divorce proceeding is going on against his wife and assured to marry with her after getting the divorce from his wife and, it was revealed further from para 6 of her testimony, that the said respondent had informed her that he has obtained the divorce from his wife on 06.02.2023 and after knowing the said fact, she requested him to marry but, he 5 refused and trying to marry with someone else, yet, no report was lodged even upon refusal in February, 2023 and went to the Women Commission, Raipur in the month of April, 2023 where also, he had refused to marry with her. Thereafter, no action or report was lodged by the prosecutrix. Besides, the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Minakshi Patel (PW-3), who has, however, not found any internal injury on her body and the prosecutrix was, thus, found to be a consenting party and the trial Court after taking note of all these materials, has not committed any illegality in acquitting the said Respondent no.2 from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in the judgment impugned. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S.Agrawal) JUDGE vivek (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE