Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh v. Gulam Sabir
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.27 16:39:39 +0530 2025:CGHC:28062-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 264 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Gulam Sabir @ Sonu Ansari, S/o Mohd. Hasib, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Aara, Sarnapara, Police Outpost - Bariya, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 26/06/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 07/04/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court (under POCSO Act), Ramanujganj in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No.57/2015, whereby, the respondent- Gulam Sabir @ Sonu Ansari has been acquitted with 2 regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and also under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as “the POCSO Act”). 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, on 12/03/2014, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a report before the Police Outpost- Bariya to the effect that his daughter, who was aged about 16 years and was the student of class-8th, was going to school on a previous day, i.e., 11/03/2014 at about 09:30 A.M. and on the way, the respondent while giving her false assurance of marriage, took her to village- Manoharpur by bus and stayed in the quarters of labourers of Stop Dam of Gaur River along with the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her. 3. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/11) was registered by the concerned Police Station against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and also under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and, during investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 12/03/2014 and her statement was recorded under 164 of Cr.P.C. and was examined medically by Dr. Snehlata Kujur (PW-6), who has submitted her report vide Ex.P/9, where she has not given any definite opinion regarding sexual intercourse upon her, nor she found any kind of injury on her body and, after completing the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted his charge-sheet before the Special Judge, Ambikapur against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and also under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in connection with Crime No.26/2014 and 3 charges were framed based upon the alleged offences, 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 8 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents, while two witnesses (DW-1 and DW-2) were examined by the respondent in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, held that the prosecutrix was not only major on the date of the incident, but was a consenting party for the alleged incident and, accordingly, the respondent has been held to be innocent and thereby, acquitted him with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 8. We have heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. The respondent is charge-sheeted with regard to the offence 4 punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and also under Section 4 of the POCSO Act with regard to the incident occurred on 11/03/2014, when she was abducted by the respondent and has committed sexual intercourse with her, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage. 10. In order to establish the alleged allegations, prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and a bare perusal of her testimony would show that on the said fateful day, the respondent called her and while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, took her to Shankargarh from village- Kakna by bus and, thereafter to Manoharpur, which is 15 kilometers away from Shankargarh and, committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened to kill, if she, disclosed the alleged incident to anybody. It, however, appears from her statement that when she was taken by him from village- Kakna to village- Shankargarh by bus, she has, however, not opposed him and even when she was taken to Manoharpur by foot, which is 15 kilometers away from Shankargarh, she has again not raised any objection. It, thus, appears that the prosecutrix has gone with him, on her own wish and it cannot be said that she was forcefully taken away by him. 11. In order to establish the minority of the prosecutrix, a Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/8C) was produced, which was proved by one Rajeshwar Bhagat (PW-4), the Headmaster of the Primary School, Nawapara Aara, Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur, where the date of birth of the prosecutrix was shown to be 20/01/1999, but, the same was, however, found to be manipulated as revealed from a bare perusal of it. That apart, the Headmaster (PW-4) of the concerned 5 school, who proved the said document, has stated specifically and rather admitted the fact that the date, month and year pertaining to the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been corrected therein. In view thereof, the entries made therein cannot be relied upon in order to ascertain the actual age of the prosecutrix. The prosecution has, thus, failed to establish the fact that she was minor on the date when the alleged offence was committed by the respondent. In such circumstances, the trial Court 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. 12. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prashant