High Court allowed appeal against conviction for attempting to screen accused under IPC Sections 118 and 213. Held that hostile witnesses including prosecutrix negated evidence required to prove principal offence and subsequent screening.
Conviction of appellants under Sections 213 & 118 of IPC and sentences set aside; bail bonds discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT QF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR
CRAiNo. 523 ofA999
-—Appellants Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh,(Now Chhattisgarh)
-—Respondent
ForAppellants For Respondent
Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate Shri Adil Minhaj, Panel Lawyer.
1-ton'bl^Shri Justice_PritirLker Djwaker
Judqement
20/11/2017
-*!:S, 'jt'l, 's®l2s'i11 °'ts^/ i^tSs^t
after the incident, a village meeting was called in which a fine of Rs.3500/was imposed on acquitteciiaccused Neelkanth and the prosecutrix was prevented by the office bearers of village Panchayat including accused/appellants herein from lodging FIR. Based on this report, offence under Sections 376, 453";& 506 of IPC was registered against accused Neelkanth. During the cpurse of investigation, offence has also been registered against as many' as 28 villagers including present appellants f • ; . who prevented the prosecutrix from lodging FIR.
^
On completion of investigatioh, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons including present'accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 213 & 1'18 of IPC respectively followed by framing of charges by the Court below under the aforesaid sections. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges levelled against accused persons examined 14 witnesses in all. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 ofCr.P.C. in which they abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence & false implieation.
^&i'K
turned hostile and denied,;6f having made statement that accused Neelkanth had raped heri;?
'upon which FIR (Ex.P-11) i!n this case has been registered. She has further stated that nothing had happened to her and her statement was not r.ecorded by the police.
\
A
Neelkanth.
l7.Thatapart, inordertoattrSctihgredientsofSections 118 & 213 of IPC, it is necessary for the pro's'ecutibn to first establish beyond doubt the commission of substantive/pi-incipal offence. Unless and until the principal offence is proved againsti"the; main accused, the co-accused cannot be convicted. In the case ih ^and also, the prosecution is launched against main accused Neelkahffi^, ''who allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prdseCutrix (PW-8). However, during trial the prosecutrix (PW-8) turned;h.osfi)e and did not support the prosecution story regarding rape committed;.yi/itfi her by the main accused. She expressed total ignorance about the inGident. She not only denied to have lodged FIR but also asserted that stne-hiad not made any statement to the police. Except the statement of fh®rprpsecutrix, there is no other evidence on record which can prov.e?> that the prosecutrix was raped. In these circumstances, the trial GotiRt was left with no option but to record acquittal of main accused of the ch3Fge;under Section 376 of IPC. As the evidence
./ f"-^'% "v '%
•: 1&'iifeEiB-. 1
^BIta•^aga 3
''S:,,l|?to^^'"xs s
-.^^'-
against the present appellaritsTegarding the offence under Sections 213 & 118 of IPC is also substantially the same as for the offence under Section 376 of IPC i.e. sole stat^ment of the prosecutrix (PW-8), the appellants' conviction for the offencejlunder Sections 213 & 118 of IPC also cannot be sustained. It appears that'evidence of the prosecutrix has been completely kept aside by the trial Court while dealing with case of present appellants and it has gone with a frame of mind, in tune with the prosecution version of the case based on inadmissible evidence and on that basis recorded conviction as against the appellants herein. This is not the way of doing / trying a criminal case, apprepiating the evidence ofwitnesses only in favour ofthe prosecution when the witnesses themselves were not in favour of the prosecutionversionofthecase,butinfavourofthedefenceversion.
-?s;5i:<:.
Mere recovery of money from the possession of accused/appellants is not sufficient to convict'them particularly when there is no substantive or reliable evidence to provyor to show that the said amount was paid by main acquitted accused NeelRanth as fine to the appellants. Furthermore, Vipin Bihari Agrawal (PWi4)'and Jethuram (PW-7), who were examined to establish the fact that the'iamount was seized at the instance of appellants vide Ex.P-4 & Ex.P-9 res|3§ctive]y, had turned hostile and bluntly denied their presence during the feco&ery of money from the appellants.
Sd/i!" Pritinker Diwaker Judge i 'f; *:r >'•'.. "' roshan ' ^
<br>
Bg!
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction and sentence of appellants under Sections 213 and 118 of IPC are sustainable when principal offence evidence is based on a hostile prosecutrix.
Whether mere recovery of money without substantive evidence linking it to the settlement of the principal offence is sufficient to convict.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Phagua son of Pooranlal
Nand Kumar son of Ramgopal Sharma
State Of Madhya Pradesh, (Now Chhattisgarh)
Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
