Bhatapara (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station
Case Details
1 / 7 2025:CGHC:14152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1388 of 2024 Aasharam Anant S/o Late Shri Sitaram Anant Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sel, Police Station - Kasdol, District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellants(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station -Kasdol, District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.). ---- Respondent
Legal Reasoning
11. It is well settled law that in the cases of sexual assault, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However, on close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that though at the time of alleged incident two daughters of victim (aged about 06 years & 03 years respectively) were present and sleeping in the house, but there is no material/evidence come on record that they have raised the alarm. Further, looking to the contradiction and exaggeration in the evidence of the prosecutrix, her conduct during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto coupled with the medical evidence which also lends no support to the prosecution case, it is clear that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in this case to the act of the accused person. 12. For the foregoing reasons/discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial Court has committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforementioned offence/crime. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set-aside. The appellant is acquitted from the aforementioned charges. He is reported to be in jail, therefore, he be set free forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 7 / 7 14. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of CrPC, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one reliable surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice J/-
Arguments
For Appellant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 25/04/2025 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure A- 1) passed by learned Session Judge, (FTC), Balodabazar, Distt- Bhatapara, (C.G.), in Session Case No.58/2022, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: 2 / 7 Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional RI. Under Section 376 of the IPC. Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional RI. Under Section 506 of the IPC. Imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional RI. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.07.2022, present appellant/accused has forcefully entered into the house of the victim and, thereafter, committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. Subsequently, on 21.08.2022, the appellant again came to the house of victim, committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened her that if she discloses the said incident, he will kill her husband and children and also viral her obscene videos on internet. Due to which, victim got worried and consumed the poison. Based upon report, on 22.08.2022 FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which, trial Court framed the charge against him. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 16 witnesses, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his 3 / 7 defence not examined any witness. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence/material available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record as the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond the reasonable doubt. There was inordinate delay in the registration of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the prosecution. Moreover, the delay of one month has no plausible explanation in the FIR. The only reason for registration of FIR is that appellant was working as ‘Mansion Maker’ and had worked at the house of the Victim, which dues was not paid by husband of the victim. There is no evidence/material has been seized from the appellant by which it can be presumed that the appellant was blackmailing the victim. Learned Counsel further contended that husband of victim came to know about her relation with the appellant, therefore, in such pressure, FIR has been lodged against the appellant by the victim. Learned trial Court did not 4 / 7 appreciate the contradiction and omission in the prosecution witnesses. Further, FSL and MLC report of victim found negative. As such, the appeal deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserve to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that based on material/evidence available on record, trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order/judgment and convicted the appellant for the aforementioned offence/crime. Hence, present appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. The question arises before this Court whether the victim was a consenting party or not? Prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC has stated that her husband was a driver and she is a president of the women's group. Janki Bai Anant, a member of our women's group, used to come to her house with her husband ie present appellant (Asharam Anant) to repay the loan amount than she met with the appellant. When appellant comes to her house for repayment of loan, he used to tell her that he likes her, wants to make physical relations and wish to marry her. On 23rd July 2022, appellant came to her house, showed her bathing video on his mobile and threatened that if she tells this to anyone, he will kill her husband and children and for this reason, she did not tells this to anyone. On 23rd July 2022, 5 / 7 appellant came to her house, rang the bell (three times) and when she opened the door, he forcefully entered inside and pushed her on the ground and, thereafter, made physical relation with her against her will. She further stated that on 21.08.2022, when her husband had gone to the market, appellant came to her house and said that he wanted to meet her, however, when she shouted and called her mother-in-law, appellant fled away from there and at around 11:30 p.m., he started harassing her by sending the messages, hence, she got upset and drank the pesticide, which was kept in the house at around 12:00 p.m. PW-1/victim-prosecutrix in her Court statement has stated that appellant/accused has occasionally made a phone calls and said that he liked her, wants to established physical relation with her and also wish to meet her. On 25.04.2022, appellant/accused showed her obscene video to her, however, she did not disclose this fact to her husband. On refusal of establishing physical relation, appellant threatened her that he will viral her obscene video on social network and defame her. He also threatened that he is having her brother's mobile number and will forwarded the said video to him. She also stated that on the date of alleged incident i.e, 23.07.2022, appellant/accused came to her house and committed sexual intercourse with her and at that time, her two daughters (elder aged about 06 years and younger aged 03 years) were sleeping in the house, however, her husband has gone out of the village for performing his duty at that time. 6 / 7 10. PW-13/Dr. Aishwarya Thakre in her deposition has stated that no injury has been found on the body of prosecutrix during examination. She opined nothing with regard to recent sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix.