Ramesh Sahu @ Chhotu S/o Balram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sonthi v. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30889-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1509 of 2015 Ramesh Sahu @ Chhotu S/o Balram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sonthi, Thana Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant (s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1558 of 2015 Achche Ram Sahu S/o kanthiram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bade Devgaon, P.S. Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Hospital Colony, Sakti, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1509/2015 For Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1558/2015
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer. DIVISION BENCH Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ (07/07/2025) Judgment on Board Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Accused/appellant – Ramesh Sahu @ Chhotu has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1509/2015 and Accused/appellant Achche Ram Sahu has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1558/2015.
Decision
2. The aforesaid Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of judgment dated 28.11.2015 3 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in ST No.50/2015 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction (in respect of accused/ Appellant Ramesh Sahu @ Chhotu) Under Section 120-B of the IPC Under Section 450 of the IPC Under Section 376 D of the IPC Conviction (in respect of accused/ appellant – Achche Ram Sahu) Under Section 120-B of the IPC Sentence Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment to of undergo RI for 6 months fine, RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 3 months Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of to of payment undergo RI for 6 months. fine, Sentence Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo RI for 6 months. 3. Since Sanjay Kashyap and Lakhan Prasad (appellants in Criminal Appeal No.635/2017) were tried separately by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Sakti, District 4 Janjgir-Champa (CG) and they were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 12.04.2017 passed in ST No.50/2015 (which is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.635/2017), separate judgment is being passed in respect of these appellants in Criminal Appeal No.635/2017. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Achche Ram Sahu (appellant in CRA No.1558/2015), who is the husband of the victim (PW-3), hatched a conspiracy against his wife along with accused Ramesh Sahu @ Chhotu (appellant in CRA No.1509/2015), Sanjay Kashyap and Lakhan Prasad (appellants in CRA No.635/2017). In furtherance of the said conspiracy, on 2.2.2014 at about 11:00 p.m, the husband of the victim on the pretext of seeking medical treatment for their son, left for Champa. Thereafter, Appellant – Ramesh Sahu and the other two accused namely Sanjay Kashyap and Lakhan Prasad entered the house of the victim and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, thereby, committing the offence. 5. It is not in dispute that appellant Achche Ram Sahu and PW- 3 (the victim) were husband and wife and their relationship was strained. Furthermore, appellant- Achche Ram Sahu filed a petition for divorce before the jurisdictional Family Court on 12.11.2013, and ultimately, a decree of divorce was 5 granted vide judgment dated 15.10.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 42A/2013 by the Family Court, Sakti (Ex.D/2). The ground raised by the appellant in the petition for divorce is his wife (victim) is living in adultery with one Rajaram, as is clear from the aforesaid judgment dated 15.10.2014. In the instant case, the victim, who is a major woman, lodged an FIR on 12.3.2014 (Ex.P/6) regarding the incident that occurred on 2.2.2014 i.e. with a delay of 38 days from the date of alleged offence. Subsequently, MLC of the victim was conducted by Dr. Sweta Lal (PW-2), and in the MLC report dated 12.3.2014 (Ex.P/3), the Doctor noted two contusions: one below the right eye and the other below the left eye and there was an abrasion on the right ring finger & dorsum. Furthermore, no external injury was seen over the private parts of her body. The Doctor opined that the injuries were sustained within seven days prior to the examination. The vaginal slide was prepared and sent for FSL examination; however, the FSL report (Ex.P/22) was found negative. 6. After due investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants /accused abjured their guilt and entered into defence. 6 7. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. Appellant Achche Ram Sahu in his defence examined himself as DW-1. 8. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above, against which, these two Appeals have been preferred by the appellants. 9. Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned counsel for appellant -Achche Ram Sahu would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. At the time of the offence, the appellant, who is the husband of the victim, was not present in the house, as he had gone to Champa for his son’s medical treatment and this fact has also been admitted by Dr. P. Singh (PW-6) before the Court. He further submits that on the date of the incident, Divorce Petition filed by the appellant was already pending consideration before the jurisdictional Family Court and consequently, a decree of divorce was granted in his favour by judgment dated 15.10.2014 (Ex.D/2), on the ground of serious allegation of adultery against the 7 victim. Thus, in view of these facts, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for clean acquittal. 10. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for appellant -Ramesh Sahu @ Chhotu would submit that the appellant has also been falsely implicated in the case and no such offence was committed by him. He further submits that there is unexplained delay of 38 days in lodging the FIR; no external injuries were seen on her private parts, whereas, the contusions and abrasions were said to be caused within 7 days of the examination; and furthermore, the FSL report has been found negative. He submits that merely on account of the delay in lodging the report, it cannot be said that the appellant has committed the offence. The victim could have lodged the FIR well within a reasonable time. He submits that as per the evidence of the victim (PW-3) herself, her daughter was present in the house at the time of the offence, however, she has not been examined. As such, considering all these facts, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 11. Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence. The appellants are not 8 entitled for acquittal and the Appeals deserve to be dismissed. 12.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and have gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 13. So far as Appellant – Achche Ram Sahu is concerned, admittedly, PW-3 (victim) is his wife and they were in a strained relationship. On the date of the offence, an application for divorce filed by Achche Ram Sahu was pending consideration before the jurisdictional Family Court, which is apparent from Ex.D/2. The appellant has instituted a petition for divorce against PW-3 (victim) on 12.11.2013 on the ground of adultery. Subsequently, a decree for divorce was also granted to the appellant on 15.10.2014. Apart from this, as per her own evidence, PW-3 (victim) was present in the house along with her daughter when the offence is said to have been committed. It has been admitted by this witness that on the date of the incident, her husband had gone to Champa for treatment of his son. She has also admitted that on the date of the offence, her husband had already instituted a Divorce Petition before the concerned Family Court and she had entered appearance in the said case. 14. Furthermore, there was 38 days delay in lodging the FIR 9 (Ex.P/6), for which an explanation was given therein stating that due to the threat extended by appellant- Achche Ram Sahu (husband), she did not lodge the FIR promptly. However, this explanation cannot be accepted for the reason that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was already strained, and a Divorce Petition was pending consideration before the concerned Family Court on the date of the offence. Moreover, as per the medical examination of the victim conducted on 12.3.2014 (MLC Report Ex.P/3), no external injury was found on the private parts of the victim and the external injuries (contusions and abrasion) found were opined to have been caused within 7 days of her examination. As such, it may be possible that the external injuries might have been resulted from an incident before the period of 7 days of her examination. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the FIR was lodged with a delay of 38 days, we are of the opinion that the appellant- Achche Ram has been falsely implicated in the crime in question and he is entitled for clean acquittal. 16. So far as Appellant – Ramesh Sahu @ Chhotu is concerned, the fact remains that on the date of the alleged 10 offence, PW-3 (victim) was present in the house along with her daughter. Moreover, there is a delay of 38 days in lodging the FIR (Ex.P/6) as the alleged incident occurred on 2.2.2014, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 12.3.2014. Though this appellant has been named in the FIR, but no Test Identification parade was conducted. Furthermore, in paragraph 12 of her evidence, PW-3 (the victim) has stated that when she went to the Police Station to lodge a report, the Police refused to lodge the same and asked her to bring someone else with her, whereupon, she went along with her brother and Shri Subhash Verma, Advocate, to lodge the report. She admits that the written report was prepared by the said Advocate. The delay in lodging the FIR is also not supported by any medical evidence. As per the MLC Report dated 12.3.2014 (Ex.P/3), the external injuries found on the body of the victim were opined to have been caused within 7 days of her examination. Moreover, no internal or external injury was found on the body of the victim to connect the appellant with the crime in question and therefore, merely on the basis of evidence of PW-3 (victim), it would be unsafe to convict the appellant. 17.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home 11 the charges beyond reasonable doubt. As such, appellant – Ramesh Sahu @ Chhotu is also entitled for acquittal by giving him the benefit of doubt. 18. In the result, the Appeals are allowed. Conviction and sentences imposed on appellants - Ramesh Sahu @ Chhotu under Sections 120-B, 450 & 376 D of the IPC and Achche Ram Sahu under Section 120-B of the IPC, are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the CrPC. 19. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Shyna