Allowed

Dubey Prasad v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2012CRR/185/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision accused by Additional Sessions Judge and Trial Court under sections 354 and 451 of IPC due to contradictory and exaggerated evidence including prosecutrix statement and witness with grudge acquitted applicant and ordered release and refund of fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentences set aside; applicant acquitted of charges and ordered to be released forthwith with refund of fine.

Dubey Prasad Vs State of C.G. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

E3)

¶2

IN 'H'iE HIG—l COLRT OF JUDICATLEE AT BILASPLR ( C.G.)

¶3

Cr.R=".No. kg OF 2002

¶4

: Dubey Prasad S/o Paras ram Dhobi aged 29 yrs‘. Resident of village W ‘ Chhee‘tapar, P.S‘. and Tahsil Bemetara, Dist‘t‘. Durg (CcGo)

¶5

VESUS

¶6

NON APPLICANT = State cf Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT Ehrough Collector DLrcg OS Distt‘. Burg (0.6.)

¶7

APPLICATION^UNDER SECTION

¶8

CONVICTION

¶9

397 and 401^Cr.‘PE.C.

¶10

SENTEREE & FINE

¶11

”in ‘

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶13

Criminal Revision No.185 of 2002

¶14

APPLICANT/z (Appellant)/ (Accused) (In^Jail)

¶15

Dubey Prasad

¶16

Versus

¶17

NON—APPLICANT/: (Respondent)/ (Prosecution)

¶18

State of Chhattisgarh

¶19

{Application^{underSection397and401Cr.P.C.}}

¶20

Present:

¶21

Mr. Sudhir Verma, counsel for the applicant.

¶22

Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶23

Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(5-9—2012)

¶26

By this revision, the applicant has challenged/Egality‘and propriety of the judgment dated 1-4-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, in Criminal Appeal No.100/98, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-5-1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara in Criminal Case No.237/96, whereby & whereunder the trial Court after holding the applicant guilty for commission of house breaking in order to commit offence and use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of woman, convicted the applicant under Sections 451 & 354 of the IPC and sentenced him to_undergo RI for six months & pay fine of Rs.100/—, in default additional Rl for one month on both counts.

¶27

l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments impugned and records of both the Courts below.

¶28

. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is easy to make, but difficult to rebut in absence of substantive evrdence, therefore, the prosecution is required to prove the offence by cogent evidence and strict proof^isrequired. In the present case, there is complete exaggeration and departure from FIR. The prosécutrix has exaggeratedthe statement.

Page 2 of 3

Cr.R.No.185/2002

Report has been Iodged at the instance of Choturam (PW-2) whose daughter-in-law^{hasbeenmarriedtotheapplicant.} Choturam (PW-2)^was having enmity^{withtheapplicant,hehasminuteiyassistedtheprosecutrix} for Iodging report^{andwasinstrumentforlodgingreport.} . On the other^{hand,IearnedStateCou'nseiopposestherevisionandsubmits} that evidences^ofthe prosecution^{witnessesaresufficienttoprovethecase} beyond the^{shadowofdoubt.}

¶33

. As per FIR, at about 8 a.m. the applicant^came to the house of the prosecutrix^{(PW-1),hedemandedsalt,whentheprosecutrixwentinsidefor} bringing salt, the applicant^entered into her^{roomandcaughtholdofher} hand, thereafter,^withbad intention,^{hetoldhertoaccompany(chal)him,} then the prosecutrix^{triedtorescueandshouted,herbangleswerebroken.} Choturam (PW-2)^{camewhohasalsoseentheincident.} However, as per para 1 of the evidence^ofthe prosecutrix^{(PW—'1),theapplicantcaughthold} of her hands,^{hedashedheronwhichshefelldown,andhealsothrusted} clothes in her^{mouthwhichsheremovedandshoutedwhereuponChoturam} of her cross-examination,^theyhave

¶34

(PW-2)^came. As per paras^6&7 lodged report at the advise of Choturam (PW-2)^and he has financially assisted them.

¶35

. As per evidence^ofChoturam (PW-2),^{afterhearingthesoundforhelp,he} rushed towards the house of the prosecutrix where he saw that the prosecutrix^{waslyingonthefloorandtheapplicantwasholdingherwhich} However, aforesaid^{factumoflyingofthe}

¶36

he has seenby^hisnakedeye. prosecutrix^{andthrustingofclothesdonotfindsupportformtheFIREx.P-4.} Inter alia,^as per^the promptly^{lodgedFIREx.P—4,theapplicanthascaught} hold of her^{handsandherbangleswerebroken,interalia,theapplicanthas} not thrusted^{clothesinthemouthoftheprosecutrix,hehasnotdashedher} and the prosecutrix^{wasnotlyingonthefloor.}

¶37

. Contradicted and exaggerated evidences of the prosecutrix (PW—1) and Choturam (PW—2) are not safe to rely for conviction of the applicant. Choturam (PW-2)^was having grudge upon the applicant and has also financially assisted the prosecutrix. By relying upon the aforesaid contradictory^and exaggerated evidences, both the Courts below have dbmmittediliegality.

¶38

it is hereby allowed.

¶39

. Consequently,^{therevisiondeservestobeallowedand} Conviction^{andsentencesoftheapplicantunderSections4451&354ofthe}

¶40

Page 3 of 3

¶41

Cr.R.No.185/2002

¶42

IPC are set aside and the applicant is acquitted of the said charges. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. He be released at once. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the applicant.”

¶43

Sd/—

¶44

T. P. Sharma

¶45

Judge f

Dubey Prasad v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dubey Prasad v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Comp.Ltd. Vs Smt.Ratan Bai and Others

Sah Deo and Ors. Vs State

Ram Pati Ram and Anr. Vs State

Shamsher Singh Vs State of C.G.

Ran Sai Vs State of C.G.

Ezra Jacob Vs Anil Gupat and Anr.