Durg (C.G.), ( v. Jagdish Bharti S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29290-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2015 of 2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.02 11:01:30 +0530 State Of Chhattisgarh Through -The Police Station Jamul, District - Durg (C.G.), (Applicant) ... Petitioner(s) versus Jagdish Bharti S/o Late Ramvachan Bharti Aged About 32 Years R/o Shramik Nagar, Near Shani Mandir, Police Station Jamul, District - Durg (C.G.), (Accused) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.07.2025 1. By way of present petition filed under Section 419 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) the State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Durg (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 128/2022, by which the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 376(2)(1) of the Indian Penal Code. 2 2. I.A. No. No. 01 of 2024, is an application for condonation of delay of 149 days in filing the instant petition for leave to appeal. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant (victim's mother) lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) before the Police Station Jamul, thereby, alleging that, on 28.02.2022 when she returned to home from work on 28.02.2022, her elder daughter disclosed that the door of the bathroom was closed inside and when they tried to open the door, accused, who was in the bathroom abused her in filthy language and in the meantime the crying of victim come from the bathroom, therefore, she called her sister-in-law namely Sanya and in the meanwhile accused came out from the bathroom while victim was inside the bathroom and weeping there. Upon asking about the incident, she disclosed that the house owner Jagdish forcibly taken her in the bathroom and committed sexual assault with her. It would be pertinent to submit here that the victim is a polio affected by birth and physically and mentally disabled girl and not able to walk. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent / accused from the offences for which he has been charged with by giving him the benefit of doubt. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order in a cryptic and laconic manner without appreciating the material available on record that victim though is a major 3 girl, but her statement goes to show that she was exploited by the accused for sexual purpose and without her consent, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the victim was a consenting party and has passed a judgment and order which is erroneous in nature in completely ignoring the evidences, which had been brought by the prosecution on record and result of non- application of mind. the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated the prosecution case in proper manner, where, the prosecution has adduced all the material evidences and records, which prima-facie prove guilty on the part of the respondent and ought to have appreciated the statement of the victim, where, she has categorically stated about the incriminating act of accused and as to how she was subjected to sexual assault by accused. Also, the learned trial Court ought to have considered the victim is physically and mentally disabled person as such she could not oppose the accused and accused taken advantage of her situation forcibly taken her in the bathroom and committed sexual assault with her. Even in statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has stated that the accused committed rape with her. The learned trial Court also ought to consider that, even though the prosecutrix did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged offence, and turned hostile, however, she herself gave statement before the Judicial Magistrate about the incriminating act of the accused while recording her 164 statement before the Judicial Magistrate. The other prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned trial Court overlooked the case of the prosecution and evidence against the accused/respondent by which the case of the prosecution is fully established against him beyond any 4 reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecutrix has been subjected to sexual assault, which is a heinous offence and is punishable under the law. In the matter of Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such offences are against the society. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in a society, an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that, merely because the accused had married with another lady and/or even the prosecutrix has subsequently married is no ground not to convict the appellant / accused for the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ranjit Hazarika Vs. State of Assam, 1998, 635 SC, has held that the evidence of victim of sexual assault is more reliable. Hence, the learned Trial Court has held that the deposition of victim is trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the present is a fit case where application under Section 419 of the BNSS deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal under Section 419 of the BNSS is allowed. 8. OfÏce is directed to register the case under the head of “Acquittal Appeal”. 9. The CrMP is disposed off accordingly. 10. The acquittal appeal is also stand admitted. 11. Let a bailable warrant of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- be issued against the 5 respondent / accused for his presence before this Court on 01.08.2025. 12. A copy of the trial Court record has already been annexed with the petition along with memo of submission. 13. Let the paper-book be filed in accordance with the High Court Rules, 2007. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet