State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Prabhkar Singh S/o Rajendra Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 35 Years R/o Gadhelpara
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13033-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3327 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Prabhkar Singh S/o Rajendra Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 35 Years R/o Gadhelpara, Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nirala Singh W/o Prem Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Gadhelpara, Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Usha Singh D/o Late Shiv Prasad Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Gadhelpara, Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shyama Bai W/o Late Shiv Prasad Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Gadhelpara, Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kamal Bhan Singh S/o Late Shiv Prasad Singh, Aged About 24 Years R/o Odari, Police Station Umariya, District Shehdol (Mp). --- Present Adress R/o Gadhelpara, Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Anaapurna Singh @ Babli W/o Prabhakar Singh, Aged About 30 Years R/o 2 Gadhelpara, Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None ... Respondent(s) Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 19/03/2025 1 Heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/petitioner. 2 This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 419(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by which the petitioner/ State seeks to question the acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Case No. 54/2017 vide judgment dated 05.12.2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koria, who were charged for the offences punishable under Section 384, 389, 120B and 306 of the IPC in connection with Crime No. 176/2016 registered at Police Station, Baikunthpur, District Koria. 3 The accused/respondents were charged under Sections 384, 389, 306, 120B of Indian Penal Code alleging that before 25.06.2016 they intentionally threatened to reveal the video recorded of the moment of sexual intercourse between the deceased Ajit Singh and dishonestly induced the frightened him to give money in cash to them and in order to provoke the deceased, they threatened to lodge a serious charge like 3 rape against him, instigated the deceased to commit suicide as a result of which Ajit Singh committed suicide on 25.06.2016. 4 The prosecution's case in brief is that the accused used to live on rent in the deceased's house. During that time, Nirala Singh had a love affair with the deceased. On knowing this, the deceased's mother Meena Yadav got her house vacated. The accused started living on rent in Gadhelpara. Both the accused Annapurna Singh and Nirala Singh used to call the deceased. Nirala Singh established physical relations with the deceased, whose video was recorded by Nirala Singh and Annapurna Singh without the knowledge of the deceased. Regarding this video, they used to black mail the deceased and demand money. The deceased gave cash to accused Annapurna Singh several times. The deceased withdrew the pension amount of his grandfather and gave it to the accused. The deceased was imprisoned in some case in Sub Jail Surajpur, when Nirala Singh went to meet him in the jail. All the accused conspired and forced the deceased to commit suicide, then on 20.05.2016 he attempted suicide by writing a suicide note, but he survived due to timely treatment. At that time the statement of the deceased was also recorded by the police. The accused harassed the deceased again to commit suicide. On 25.06.2016, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself. The information of death was given by the brother of the deceased, Surjit Singh, vide Exhibit P-1 at Police Station Baikunthpur on the basis of which, Merg No. 32/2016 was registered. After giving notice (Exhibit P-3) to the witnesses, in their presence the inquest (Exhibit P-4) was prepared. The body was sent to the District Hospital Baikunthpur for post-mortem, where Dr. S.H. Shende conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and submitted the report (Exhibit P.-27). A suicide note, a mobile and a blade with blood on 4 it and a card were seized from the deceased's pocket at the scene of the incident as per seizure memo (Exhibit P-2). 5 Regarding the handwriting of the deceased, copies of the earlier written documents were seized from his brother Surjit Singh vide Exhibit P-6 and P-7 and a panchnama of which was prepared vide Exhibit P.-9. The deceased had applied for the post of Chowkidar at Polytechnic College, Korea, which was seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P.-24 from Principal Government Polytechnic College in respect of handwriting. With respect to meeting of accused Nirala Singh in Sub Jail Surajpur with the deceased, documents were seized vide Exhibit P-21C. Information regarding the transaction of the deceased's account was obtained from the bank. Spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared vide Exhibit P/10 and P/10A. Patwari also prepared a spot map (Exhibit P/11). The statements of witnesses were recorded. 6 In the case, the suicide note and the questionable documents were sent to the examiner of Chhattisgarh Government, Raipur for matching the handwriting of the deceased who after examination gave the report of Exhibit P-63, and Exhibit P-64. After complete investigation in the case, charge sheet was presented in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Baikunthpur under Section 306, 120B, 384, 389 IPC. 7 Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 384, 389, 306 and 120 B of the IPC and were read over to the accused which was denied by them and they prayed for trial. 8 In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses namely Vijay Singh (PW-1), Surjeet Singh (PW-2), Amit Kumar Chikjanuri (PW-3), David Tirkey, Branch Manager Punjab National Bank (PW-4), Ashish Lakra, Branch Manager Bank of India 5 (PW-5), Nagendra Thakur (PW-6), Meena Yadav (PW-7), Lalman Yadav, retired teacher (PW-8), Deepshikha Say, Patwari (PW-9), Ashwani Kumar Shukla, Assistant Jail Superintendent (PW-10), Ghanshyam (PW-11), R.J. Pandey, Principal (PW-12), Assistant Sub- Inspector R.S.Marawi (PW-13), Dr. Sukhdev Hiraman Shende (PW-14), Dr. Yogendra Chauhan (PW-15), Constable pushkal sinha (PW-16), Sub-Inspector rajneesh kaushik (PW-17), Head Constable Sobhnath (pw-18), Constable Dilip Kumar Bhagat (PW-19), Tulsidas Mehta, Manager, State Bank of India (PW-20), Vishal Sahu, United Bank Of India, Branch Khepal (PW-21), Vineet Dubey (PW-22), Prakash Chandra Trivedi, Government Examiner of questionable documents, Chhattisgarh Government, Raipur (PW 23), Sahendra Prasad, Senior Manager (PW- 24) were recorded and exhibited as many as 64 exhibits. In support of their case, the accused examined Prabhakar Singh Kushwaha as DW-1 and exhibited the police statements of Lalman Yadav, Ghanshyam Yadav and the order sheets and copy of documents relating to Special S.T. No. 5/2020, as Exhibits D/1, D/2 and D/3, respectively. 9 The statement of the respondents/accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded by the learned trial Court wherein they stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. I 10 The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 11 Mr. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has failed to consider that there was sufÏcient evidence on record to convict the respondents for the offences in question. The conduct of the respondents have been 6 afÏrmed by the relatives and friends of the deceased. There are criminal antecedents of the accused Prabhakar Singh. The reasons assigned for acquittal of the respondents are totally irrelevant and the learned trial Court ought to have convicted the respondents suitably. 12 Today, the matter is listed for admission and IA No. 1, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the present petition as there is delay of 260 days. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned and we proceed to decide this petition finally. 13 We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and have also gone through the materials available on record. 14 From perusal of the aforesaid, it transpires that there is no doubt that the deceased committed suicide by hanging in a godown and the doctor who had conducted the postmortem has also opined the death to be suicidal in nature. The allegation against the accused persons/respondents is that they had secretly recorded the intimate moments of the deceased and accused Nirala Singh and they were blackmailing the deceased. The prosecution has neither exhibited the said video clipping nor has tried to obtain the same which could have made the picture clear. There is no specific allegation the respondents as to which respondent had played what role. The prosecution has also not been able to suggest as to which accused had recorded the alleged video, which accused threatened the deceased and who realised the money from the deceased. 15 Another aspect of the matter is that there was a love affair between the deceased and Nirala Singh and Nirala Singh was later on married to other person because of which the deceased used to remain sad. There is no evidence in the on record to hold that the accused/respondents incited, motivated or helped the deceased to commit suicide before his 7 death. Whereas there is also no evidence in the case that the accused had established any contact with the deceased in any way till one month before his death. In the case, the accused/respondents cannot be considered to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide merely on the basis of their name in the alleged suicide note, unless there was clear evidence in the case that they instigated the deceased to commit suicide or did some act to induce him, as a result of which the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. In the present case, the fact of the accused instigating the deceased to commit suicide could not be proved and the instigation by them by threatening to show the video of the physical relationship between him and Nirala Singh and by threatening to involve him in a serious crime like rape, could not be proved and the conspiracy by them to commit the said crime is also not proved and as such, the learned trial Court was rightly justified in arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and were acquitted of the charges. 16 From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in acquitting the respondents of the charges. 17 Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 18 Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.20 11:16:42 +0530