Dismissed

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Rampratap Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC5 Oct 2015CRMP/595/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of Ram Pratap Sahu in sessions trial for rape and criminal intimidation. The court upheld the Trial Judge's conclusion of acquittal due to the prosecutrix's unreliability, inconsistent statements, and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The order of acquittal of the respondent is affirmed.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rampratap Sahu — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Cr.M.P. NO. 595 OF 2015

¶5

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station – Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.)

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ram Pratap Sahu, S/o Ramjit Sahu, Caste Teli, age 20 years, R/o Village Piparhiya, Police Station – Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.)

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

Per NAVIN SINHA, C.J.

¶14

05/10/2015

¶15

1. The present application has been filed for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the Respondent, dated 19.6.2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Baikunthpur, in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2014, from the charges under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.

¶16

2. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the Trial Judge erred in granting acquittal without properly appreciating that the evidence of the Prosecutrix was sufficient in cases of the present nature to sustain conviction. In cross-examination, the Prosecutrix had fully supported the allegations of the Respondent having physically violated her.

¶17

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the FIR itself was lodged two days later. The Prosecutrix and her husband both had in their examination-in-chief only talked of a verbal abuse made by the Respondent when the cattle of the Prosecutrix intruded into his fields.

¶18

-2-

¶19

After she was declared hostile by the prosecution and was crossexamined, she sought to urge physical violation. She was alleged to have been pulled over rough ground in the fields and into the shrubs, but the MLC report dated 13.12.2013 has found no injury marks on her body at all. It is submitted that if she was violated in the fields, pulled through the shrubs, there ought to have been a basic minimum injury to her externally visible. In cross-examination on behalf of the Respondent, the Prosecutrix again stated that except for the verbal insult, the Respondent did not do anything else to her.

¶20

4. We have considered the submissions.

¶21

5. The Trial Judge, in our opinion, has rightly concluded that the Prosecutrix was a highly unreliable witness taking vacillating stands. We also notice unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. The FIR does not even contain any material with regard to nature of utterance allegedly made by the Respondent to invite prosecution under Section 506 IPC.

¶22

6. In conclusion, we find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal.

¶23

7. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶24

Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) Chief Justice Judge

¶25

/sharad/*

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Rampratap Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Rampratap Sahu

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

Dr. Bahadur Singh Marko Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kanhaiyalal Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Tikam Chand Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Praveen Khandelwal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr.

M/s. Vinay Kumar Upadhyay Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Loknath Vs Smt. Rukmani