XYZ v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Shayang, District Korba
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR ACQA No. 1140 of 2024 XYZ .... Applicant(Victim) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Shayang, District Korba (C.G.). 2 - Rambharos Rathiya S/o Baliram Rathiya Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village- Labed, Police Station Shayang District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Priya Keiwart, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgement on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 24.01.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Victim under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the Judgment dated 05.07.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) District-Korba, in Sessions 2 Trial No.43/2024, whereby the Respondent No.2-(Rambharosh Rathiya) has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.02.2024, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Superintendent of Police, Korba, alleging therein, that on 04.02.2024 in between 11:11 to 11:30 pm, when she went to her Badi in order to attend call of nature, the Respondent No.2, who was hidden there, came and caught hold of her hand and gagged her mouth and while threatening to kill her, committed sexual intercourse forcefully. It is alleged further that the alleged incident was seen by her husband and owing to which, a quarrel took place between them and the said respondent has fled away from the spot and stated further that her husband while creating doubt on her character, has kicked her out from the House. 3. Based upon the alleged report, an FIR was registered on the same day against the said respondent in connection with Crime No.09/2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 376 of IPC. After recording the statements of prosecutrix and others’ and after completing the usual investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kartala District-Korba on 08.04.2004, against the said respondent with regard to the offence as mentioned herein-above and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Korba, where, the charge has been framed against him in 3 relation to the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the Respondent No.2, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and has exhibited 20 documents, while one was examined by him in his defence. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix is a consenting party for the alleged incident and, accordingly, acquitted him for the commission of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC and, being aggrieved, the Appellant/Victim has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Victim submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the prosecutrix is a consenting party, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, as the evidence led by her and others’, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby erred in acquitting the said respondent as such. 7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/State has supported the contention of the counsel for the Appellant/ Victim. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of the written report (Ex. P/1) lodged by the prosecutrix on 27.02.2024, the Respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 04.02.2024 in between 11:11 to 11:30 pm. 4 10. A bare perusal of the said report (Ex.P/1), addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Korba, it was alleged by the prosecutrix that on the fateful day, i.e. on 04.02.2024 in between 11:11 to 11:30 PM, when she went to her Badi, in order to attend the call of nature, the Respondent No.2-Rambharosh Rathiya, who was already hidden there, came and caught hold of her and gagged her mouth and while threatening to kill her, committed sexual intercourse forcefully. The alleged report reveals further that it was seen by her husband and, the Respondent No.2, upon seeing him, has fled away from the spot. Although, it was alleged as such, but, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1), it, however, reveals that the said respondent has committed sexual intercourse with her 3 to 4 times, while threatening to kill her children and reveals further that when she shouted, her husband came out from the house and upon seeing him, he (Respondent No.2-Rambharosh Rathiya) fled away and similar was her version made under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/5). It, thus, appears from a bare perusal of her said version that her husband had come at that particular time, but, the missing report (Ex.D/5) lodged by her husband on 06.02.2014, would, however, show that his wife has gone somewhere else in the night itself. The version of the prosecutrix, therefore, cannot be relied upon that her husband had come and seen the incident and because of that, the said respondent has fled away. It, thus, appears that a false report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by her. 11. It is to be seen further from her (PW/1) testimony, particularly Para 17, that she has already seen Rambharosh Rathiya in the Badi, but despite of that, she has not informed to her husband. It reveals 5 further from Paragraphs 31 and 33 of her statement that when her cloths were being removed by the said Respondent No.2, she has neither shouted nor any injury was found on her body. Dr. Jyoti Sahu (PW/2), who examined her medically, has also not found any injuries on her body. 12. In view thereof, it appears that the prosecutrix was a consenting party with regard to the incident occurred on 04.02.2024 in between 11:11 to 11:30 PM and, the trial Court, after considering the evidence led by her, has not committed any illegality in arriving at a conclusion that she was a consenting party, while acquitting the Respondent No.2 from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 13. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is, dismissed. d/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Arpan Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge