Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 115 of 2017 Sunil Kumar Jangde S/o Manmohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 52/92, Police Colony, Police Colony, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant versus Surender Khandekar S/o Sanna Khandekar, Aged About 32 Years Police Constable, Presently In Malkharoda, Police Station District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.12 14:25:03 +0530 11.06.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal procedure assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 21.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 226/2014, whereby the Appellate Court has acquitted the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 497 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant/appellant filed a 2 complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for registering the offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506-B, 380, 497, 507 of Indian Penal Code, against 8 persons, including the respondent/accused. Marriage of complainant was solemnized on 06.05.1998 with co-accused Manju Jangde and after marriage, she was residing with the appellant and out of their wedlock, one son namely Bhanu Pratap Singh, who is presently aged about 10 years, was born. Complainant/ appellant used to go on his duty sometime in the day and sometime in the night and at that time, her wife Manju Jangde and son Bhanu Pratap used to stay at home. When the appellant used to go on his duty, his wife Manju Jangde used to call her paramour i.e. respondent/accused herein and developed physical relations with him. When the son of appellant, namely, Bhanu Pratap came to know about the illicit relation of Manju Jangde and respondent, then the respondent threatened him to kill. It is further submitted by the appellant that one day, the appellant had caught raid handed to the respondent and Manju Jangde in objectionable condition and thereafter the appellant came to aware about phone call and pornography between the respondent and co-accused Manju Jangde. It was further alleged by the complainant that he had made complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on which call details of mobile no. 9329719793, 917450799, 9098155121 & 7817222098, belongs to respondent were verified and found that the respondent has talked with the wife of complainant in the long periods. Complainant called a social meeting, in which, his wife was advised not to behave like this. The said Manju Jangde threatened the complainant/appellant for implicating him in false case and thereafter she stole golden ornaments and cash Rs. 75,000/- and went 3 to her parental house. The complainant taken back his wife, but she again went to her parental home along with remaining household articles. Thereby the respondent has committed the aforesaid offences. After recording preliminary statement of complainant and his witnesses, the trial Court registered the case under Section 497 of IPC against the respondent and after recording the statement of appellant and his witnesses, the trial Court found the respondent Surendra Khandekar guilty of offence under Section 497 of IPC and sentenced him R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine 15 days additional R.I. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.09.2015 passed by learned Appellate court is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the material evidence available on record, therefore it is liable to be set-aside. The learned Appellate Court has erred in reversing the well reasoned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. He also submits that the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the documents and evidences produced before it in its correct perspective. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the respondent knowing fully well that Smt. Manju Jangde is the wife of appellant, had developed physical relation with her, therefore the trial Court has rightly convicted the respondent under Section 497 of IPC. The findings recorded by the Appellate court is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and contrary to the material available on record, therefore it is liable to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent supported the 4 impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the Appellate Court and further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court which needs no interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents and other material available on record. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that in the present case, the complainant himself appeared as PW-1 after the charges were framed and did not examine any other witnesses in support of his testimony. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that when he asked his son who visited and if he saw anyone, his son Bhanu Pratap told him that Surender Kandekar would come to their home and the mother (co-accused) would call him by phone in his absence. However, merely calling someone cannot imply that they had sexual intercourse. He has further stated that his son also told him that one day he was sleeping then Surender Khandekar has given his penis in his hand. He has scared very much so, he acted of sleeping. After that respondent Surender Khandekar was doing indecent behaviour with his mother and thereafter they went to another room. After one hour he went into the other room and saw that his mother and Surender were nude to enfold in arms. The complainant has not stated these facts in his complaint so, these facts are considered as improvements made by the complainant, more so, he has stated these facts only on the basis of information given to him by his son Bhanu Partap and he has not seen the said occurrence so, his evidence is only hearsay, therefore, it has no much value. He has not given the time, date, month etc. of said 5 incident so, the allegations are vague in nature. He has simply stated that his son has told him that his mother and Surender Khandekar/respondent were in nude condition. He has not stating that they were doing sexual intercourse or were involved in any sexual activity and in absence of proof of sexual intercourse, one can not be held liable for offence punishable under Section 497 I.P.C. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the record that complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. In view thereof, the Appellate Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7. Consequently, I do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is, thus, dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti