Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. Tarun Singh
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.14 10:43:35 +0530 2025:CGHC:7789-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 76 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus
Legal Reasoning
Tarun Singh @ Babu, S/o Late Shri Devsingh, Caste Rajput Thakur, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Tarbahar, Khudiram Bose Chowk, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/Appellant For Respondent : : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer None, despite service of notice. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Judgment on Board. 13/02/2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23/09/2016 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case No.26/2015, 2 whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989”). 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, on 17/05/2015, a written report (Ex.P/3) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station- Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), wherein, it has been alleged by her that the respondent- Tarun Singh @ Babu, who lives in front of her house, called her, prior to 7-8 months of the said date i.e. 17/05/2015, for one reason or the other in his house and when she reached his house, she found that he was alone at home and, he forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her. She alleged further that, thereafter also, while threatening her to disclose about the alleged relations to her husband, he made the alleged relations forcefully with her. 3. Based upon the said report, an FIR (Ex.P/4) was registered in Police Station-Tarbahar against the respondent in connection with Crime No.111/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989 and after recording her statement and others’, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur with regard to the alleged offence as mentioned herein above and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge under the Act, 1989, where the charge has been framed against the respondent with regard to the offence 3 punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989, which was 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 08 witnesses and has exhibited 18 documents, while 01 witness was examined by the respondent, in his defence. 5. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, it was held by the trial Court that the prosecutrix is a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence and, accordingly, the respondent has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant. 6. 7. Despite, service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State/appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that with regard to the incident occurred 6 to 7 months prior to lodging of the written report (Ex.P/3) by the prosecutrix on 17/05/2015, the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989 was registered against the respondent and the charges have accordingly, been framed against him. In order to establish the fact that, the respondent has committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent, she (prosecutrix) was examined as PW-3 and, it was stated by her that 7-8 months prior to lodging of the alleged report, (Ex.P/3), the respondent called her to his house for one 4 reason or the other at about 01:00 P.M., when he was alone at home and has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. It reveals further from her testimony, at para 4, that, 2 to 3 days after the occurrence of the alleged incident, he again called her to his house and despite of her resistance, he threatened to disclose regarding the alleged incident to her husband and while threatening as such, made the physical relations with her again and, deposed further at paragraph 5 that he has committed the same for 3 to 4 times on different dates. Although, it was stated by the prosecutrix that the respondent has committed the alleged offence with her forcefully, but her said version was, however, not found to be supported by other of the prosecution witnesses. 9. It is to be seen further that the sister-in-law (Devrani) of the prosecutrix namely, Gita Kosle, who was listed as one of the prosecution witness was, however, not examined by the prosecution, but the respondent has produced her (Gita Kosle) as DW-1 in his defence and, it was stated by her that the prosecutrix used to go to the respondent’s house and also called him to her house and both used to roaming in the city and because of their roaming here and there, the vicinity of the locality was used to get disturbed. 10. It, thus, appears that the statement as made by the prosecutrix that the respondent has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully, was, however, not found to be supported by other of the prosecution witnesses and rather, it was found to be made on her own wishes as revealed from the testimony of her sister-in-law (Devrani), namely, Gita Kosle (DW-1), who used to live with the prosecutrix in the same house. 5 That apart, the incident, which was occurred on 04/11/2014, as per the statement (Ex.D/1) of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the alleged relations of theirs’ are found to be continued and, despite of that, no report was, however, lodged by the prosecutrix would, therefore, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecutrix is a consenting party and the respondent has not committed the alleged sexual intercourse without her consent and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him, while recording such a finding, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prashant