Mahendra Tiwari S/o Shri Koshmani Tiwari, aged about 53 years, R/o through Anil v. State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.03.10 17:02:46 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:11517-DB NAFR CRA No. 2018 of 2019 [Arising out of judgment dated 26.11.2019 passed in Special Criminal Case No.24/2018 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, Chhattisgarh.] Mahendra Tiwari S/o Shri Koshmani Tiwari, aged about 53 years, R/o through Anil Agarwal, structure Samta Colony, P. S. Ajad Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.
Legal Reasoning
For State-Respondent :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (04.03.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the sole appellant, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 2 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 26.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Special Criminal Case No.24/2018, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of ₹ 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month and also convicted for offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity “POCSO Act”) and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of ₹ 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Prosecution story:- 2. On 06.07.2018 at about 6:00 pm, at Samta Colony, Police Station, Ajad Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, the appellant committed sexual assault with minor victim (PW-2), who was aged about 5 years on the date and time of offence, and thereby committed the offence in question. 3 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 3. Further case of the prosecution is that the victim’s mother (PW-1) used to work with regard to household chores in the house of Anil Agrawal (PW-3) and appellant also used to work as a security guard in the house of PW-3. On the date of offence i.e. 06.07.2018, the victim’s mother (PW-1) along with victim (PW-2) went to house of PW-3 for doing her work. On that day, in the evening, at about 6:00 pm, when PW-1 along with one Kiran (PW-6) was watching the marriage function, one of of the neighbour of PW-3, from 2nd floor of the house of PW-3, then the victim went to answer the nature’s call to the washroom, which is situated at the ground floor, the appellant also reached to the washroom and committed the sexual assault with the victim. Victim informed her mother about the pain, which she ignored at that time, but when they reached to the house and victim again comaplaint about the pain on her private part, then after examination of the victim, she (PW-1) found blood on victim’s underwear as well as on the private part and on being asked about the blood, the victim informed her (PW-1) about the incident. The said incident was informed by victim’s mother (PW-1) to Anil Arawal (PW-3) who took her (victim) to the hospital and provided medical treatement. 4 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 4. Against the said criminal act of the appellant, victim’s mother (PW-1) made a written complaint vide Ex.P/1 and on that basis FIR was registered vide Ex.P/2. Crime details form and spot map were prepared vide Exs.P/5 & P/6, respectively. As per birth certificate (Ex.P/9), the date of birth of minor victim is 28.05.2013, meaning thereby, on the date and time of offence, the age of the victim was 5 years. Minor victim was medically examined by Dr. P. Sharma (PW-9) who prepared the victim’s medical report vide Ex.P/12. In the medical report (Ex.P/12) it is opined by Dr. P. Sharma (PW-9) that the injuries which were found on the private part of the minor vicitm could be caused due to forceful insertion of hard and blunt object, sexual intercourse might have been tried. Dr. P. Sharma (PW-9) prepared the two slides. Underwear of the victim was seized vide Ex.P/4. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL. As per FSL report (Ex.P/21) on the slide of the victim blood was found. 5. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 5 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 6. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents, whereas, defence, in support of its case, has not examined any witness, but exhibited 1 document. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 7. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the Parties:- 8. Ms Indira Tripathi, counsel for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. She would also submit that in the written report date is not mentioned, therefore, the prosecution case deserves to be dismissed on that ground 6 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 alone and more particularly, as per medical report of the victim (Ex.P/12) proved by Dr. P. Sharma (PW-9), no external injuries were found over the body of the victim. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 9. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that the victim has clealry supported the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the medical evidence and forensic evidence have also supported the case of the prosecution and even the victim on being asked leading question by Dr. P. Sharma (PW-9), she (victim) has taken the name of the appellant herein by stating the the appellant has committed the criminal act with her. As such, the conviction of the appellant is well merited and, therefore, the instant criminal appeal deserve to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the with utmost circumspection. 7 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 Discussion & Analysis :- 11. Admittedly, as per the birth certificate (Ex.P/9) and on the basis of the statement of the victim’s mother (PW-1) the victim was aged about 5 years, which has not been challenged by the defence, as such, the trial Court has rightly held that the victim was minor on the date and time of offence. The trial Court has proceeded to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of testimony of the minor victim (PW-2), victim’s mother (PW-1), Dr. P. Sharma (PW-9), medical evidence (Ex.P/12) and the forensic eivdence (Ex.P/21). The minor victim (PW-2) in her statement before the Court has clearly implicated the appellant in crime in question by stating that on the date and time of offence when she had gone to answer the nature’s call into the washroom, the appellant also came there and committed sexual assault with her and even in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/22) she has clealry implicated the appellant. Further, Dr. P. Sharma (PW-9) who examined the minor victim (PW-2) has clearly recorded in the victim’s medical report (Ex.P/12) as well as mentioned the said fact in her statement before the Court that while replying the leading question, the minor victim (PW-2) 8 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 stated her that the appellant has committed the sexual assault with her. Similarly, victim’s mother (PW-1) in her statement before the Court has stated that on being asked her daughter, stated her that the appellant has committed the sexual assasult with her due to which she was suffering from pain. 12. In the shape of corroboration, the trial Court has relied upon the medical evidence of the minor victim. In the victim’s medical report (Ex.P/12) proved by Dr. P. Sharma (PW-9), superficial abrasion was found on the right labia minora and on being touched blood was oozing out; swelling was found on hymen which was also found ruptured and contusion was also found on labia and perineal region and while examination minor victim was also complianing pain on her private part. As such, the statement of the minor victim is clearly corroborated by the medical evidnence. Moreover, in the FSL report (Ex.P/21) on the slides (slides of labia minora; perenial region and hymen region) blood (RBC+) was found. The statement of victim’s mother (PW-1) that while examining her daugther [minor victim (PW-2)] she found the blood was oozing out from the private part of the victim has clearly been supported by the FSL report (Ex.P/21.). At this stage, the 9 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 contention raised on behalf of the appellant that in the written complaint, reporting date is not mentioned, however the named FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the appellant on the very next day i.e. 07.07.2018, clearly corroborated by the statements of victim (PW-2), victim’s mother (PW-1) and Dr. P. Sharma (PW-9) and even otherwise that fact is insignificant and it would not make the case of the prosecution doubtful, therefore, the appellant cannot be acquitted on that ground alone. As such, the trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant who committed the sexual assault with the minor victim is a correct finding of fact, based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records and we hereby affirm the said finding of the trial Court. Conclusion:- 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As a consequence, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed. 10 CRA No. 2018 of 2019 14. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, informing the appellant that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Judge (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Ankit