Omprakash Sinha S/o Tilchand Sinha Aged About 36 Years, R/o of Dhurvagudi, Kalonipara v. State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, PS- Indagaaon, Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 2130 of 2024 Omprakash Sinha S/o Tilchand Sinha Aged About 36 Years, R/o of Dhurvagudi, Kalonipara, P/s Indagaaon, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, PS- Indagaaon, Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Lokesh Misrha, Advocate For Respondent-State
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07.03.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2024, passed by learned Session Judge, Gariyaband, (CG) in POCSO Case No.20/24, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence 2 Under Section 366 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years & fine of INR 1,000, in default of payment of fine 02 months additional imprisonment. Under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC RI for 10 years & fine of INR 2,000, in default of payment of fine 02 months additional imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that complainant (father of prosecutrix) lodged missing report to the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that on 18.11.2023 her minor daughter (aged about 16 years, 5 months & 12 days) went out from the house without intimating anything to her family members and did not return back. In the said complaint, he also raised suspicion against the appellant as he is having conversation with her daughter. Based upon report, initially the Police registered the FIR for offence under Section 363 of IPC against unknown person. During investigation, prosecutrix was recovered on 29.03.2023 from the possession of her mother. Her statement was recorded and, based upon which, appellant/accused was arrested in aforementioned crime. 4. On completion of investigation, challan/charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which, learned Court below has framed the charges u/s 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 11 witnesses namely victim/prosecutrix PW1, mother of prosecutrix PW2, father of prosecutrix PW3, Dr. Gajendra Kumar Dhruw PW4, Patwari Rameshwari Thakur PW5, Dr. Savi Gupta PW6, Headmaster Virendra Kumar Kosle PW7, SI Saroj Chaure PW8, Headmaster Sanjay Kumar Bhoi PW9, ASI Devendra Kumar Verma PW10 and SI Mahesh Kumar Sahu PW11. 6. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the appellant u/s 366 & 376(2)(n) of the IPC, however, acquitted him u/s 6 of the POCSO Act on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of alleged incident, victim was minor. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record as there are many contradictions and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Victim/prosecutrix in her evidence has specifically admitted the consensual relationship with the appellant on several occasions. She also admitted that she left her house on her own will and resided 4 alone for about 04 months in Odisha, her mother frequently called her and requested her to come back but finally when her father got ill, she returned to her parental home. Due to her affair with the appellant, a community meeting was held in her village. Statement of the prosecutrix shows that the appellant and prosecutrix were in consensual relationship, which cannot be termed as rape on pretext of marriage as the prosecutrix was aware about the family status of the appellant. Prosecutrix had nowhere stated that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant on pretext of marriage. Learned Counsel further contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-3/father of the prosecutrix, who in his cross examination has affirmed that he was in regular telephonic contact with the prosecutrix, but the prosecutrix herself concealed her address from him and also affirmed that the family status of the appellant was well known to them as the appellant was not only their relative but neighbour also. Further, trial Court failed to appreciate the testimony of PW/6-Dr. Savi Gupta, who opinion that there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse, external or internal injury over the prosecutrix's body. Looking to the entire facts and testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the whole prosecution story has become untrustworthy. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set- aside. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of hon'ble Apex Court in case of Tameezuddin alias 5 Tammu vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2004). 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant on the
Decision
pretext of marriage. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 11. The only question arises before this Court whether victim/prosecution was a consenting party or not ? 12. Relevant portion of the evidence of the prosecutrix before the trial Court read as under:- “02. आरोपी ओम्ቚकाश सि(cid:13)न्हा मेरे जीजा लगता है। घटना आज (cid:13)े लगभग दो-तीन माह पू्ብ(cid:30) आरोपी मुझे उड़ी(cid:13)ा के दाबरीपानी में किकराये के मकान में ले जाकर रखा था। आरोपी मुझे शादी करूं गा कहकर भगाकर ले गया था। आरोपी मुझे 4 माह तक उड़ी(cid:13)ा दाबरीपानी में रखा था, इ(cid:13) दौरान आरोपी मेरे (cid:13)ाथ कई बार शारीरिरक (cid:13)ंबंध बनाया था। आरोपी मुझे रायपुर ले जाकर छोड़ किदया था। 15. यह कहना (cid:13)ही है किक, मैं रास्ते में कभी किक(cid:13)ी को अपने बचा्ብ हेतु आ्ብाज नहीं किदया था। और ना ही किक(cid:13)ी (cid:13)े (cid:13)हायता अथ्ብा मदद मांगी थी। यह कहना (cid:13)ही है किक उड़ी(cid:13)ा में जब में आरोपी के (cid:13)ाथ रहती थी तब उ्ሹ घर के आ(cid:13)पा(cid:13) या अन्य किक(cid:13)ी लोगों को यह बात नहीं बतायी थी किक आरोपी ओम्ቚकाश सि(cid:13)न्हा मुझे जबरन बहला फु (cid:13)ला कर या शादी का झां(cid:13)ा देकर मुझे भगाकर लाया है। 6 यह कहना (cid:13)ही है किक, उ(cid:13) (cid:13)मय में आरोपी ओम्ቚकाश सि(cid:13)न्हा के (cid:13)ाथ अपनी मज: (cid:13)े राजीखुशी (cid:13)े रह रही थी। 16. यह कहना (cid:13)ही है किक उड़ी(cid:13)ा में रहने के दौरान मेरे माता किपता (cid:13)े मेरी बातचीत होती थी। मेरे माता किपता मुझे पूछे थे कहां हो, तो मैं अपने माता किपता को अपने रहने का स्थान नहीं बतायी थी, (cid:13)ा्ቌी स््ብतः कहती है किक आरोपी मुझे मना किकया था किक रहने का स्थान मत बताना इ(cid:13)लिलए मैं स्थान नहीं बतायी थी मैं आरोपी के (cid:13)ाथ अच्छे (cid:13)े रह रही थी। मेरे माता किपता मुझे डांटते थे और हम लोगों को बेई्ሸती कर्ብा किदये हो बोलते थे इ(cid:13)लिलए मैं रहने का स्थान नहीं बतायी थी। 17. …………….यह कहना (cid:13)ही है किक मेरा डॉक्टरी मुलाकिहजा हुआ था, डॉक्टर मेडम को मैं यह नहीं बतायी थी आरोपी ने मेरे (cid:13)ाथ यौन (cid:13)ंबंध स्थाकिपत किकया है। 19. यह कहना (cid:13)ही है किक, आरोपी मेरा जीजा लगता है। यह कहना (cid:13)ही है किक हम दोनों एक दू(cid:13)रे (cid:13)े बातचीत होती थी और हम दोनों के मध्य ्ቚेम (cid:13)ंबंध होने के कारण आरोपी की पत्नी हम लोगों (cid:13)े झगड़ा करती थी। यह कहना (cid:13)ही है किक मेरे उड़ी(cid:13)ा ए्ብं रायपुर में रहने के दौरान मेरी मां मुझे रोज बोलती थी किक ्ብाकिप(cid:13) आ जाओ हम लोग तुझे कु छ नहीं बोलेंगें। यह कहना गलत है किक. मेरी मां की तबीयत खराब होने के कारण मैं ्ብाकिप(cid:13) आ गयी, (cid:13)ा्ቌी स््ብतः कहती है किक, मेरे किपताजी के तबीयत खराब होने के कारण ्ብाकिप(cid:13) आयी हू ं।" 13. From the evidence of the victim, it is reflecting that appellant is brother-in-law of the victim; victim herself left her house and resided with the appellant in Odisha and did not raise any alarm during that period, she regularly talked with her parents on phone call. It is also very well clear that there is consensual relationship between appellant and victim, they had establish physical relationship on several occasions. Further, PW/6-Dr. Savi Gupta (medical officer) in her deposition has stated that no 7 (internal or external) injury has been found on the body of prosecutrix during examination. Thus, looking to the evidence of the prosecutrix, her conduct during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto coupled with the medical evidence which also lends no support to the prosecution case, it is clear that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in this case to the act of the accused person. In the given set of facts and circumstances of the case, no offence of rape or abduction is made out against the appellant. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 366 & 376(2) (n) of IPC. 15. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-