Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Parasrao Barley

Chhattisgarh HC23 Sept 2019CRMP/869/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition. The trial court had acquitted accused of rape and POCSO charges. Issues arose regarding the prosecutrix evidence, excessive coaching by an influential figure, alleged false accusations, and inability to prove the prosecutrix's age. The Court held it was not a fit case for leave to appeal against acquittal.

What did the court decide?

CRMP dismissed; leave to appeal against acquittal denied.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Parasrao Barley — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

CRMP No. 869 of 2019

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 869 of 2019

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House OfÏcer, Police Station -Kharora, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Parasrao Barley S/o Tilakrao Barley Aged About 37 Years R/o Village-Gadadih, Police Station-Bhatapara Rural, District-Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Village-Beldar Siwani, Police Station- Kharora, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Sohan Singh S/o Sattu Singh Beldar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village-Beldar Siwani, Police Station Kharora, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Yogesh @ Golu@ Chotu @ Mukesh Beldar S/o Ashwini Beldar Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Beldar Siwani, Police Station Kharora, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner/State

¶14

Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer

¶15

DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Chourdiya

¶16

Order On Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Order On Board

¶17

23/9/2019

¶18

Heard on IA No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing the CRMP.

¶19

On due consideration, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶20

¶21

CRMP No. 869 of 2019

¶22

Also heard on admission.

¶23

The trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 376 (2) (N) of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶24

The prosecutrix said to be less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident, alleged that accused Parasrao Barley, Sohan Singh and Yogesh @ Golu @ Chotu @ Mukesh Beldar committed forcible sexual intercourse with her at different locations at different point of time. There is enough evidence on record that for lodging the FIR as also during the entire trial, one Pappu Purena had actively assisted the prosecutrix and her mother. The prosecutrix admits that the name of the accused persons were mentioned in FIR at the instance of Pappu Purena. She admits that initially the FIR did not contain the name of accused Golu @ Mukesh and that his name was recorded because Pappu Purena wanted his impleadment. She further admits that Pappu Purena and father of accused Golu @ Mukesh had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat and the father of accused Golu @ Mukesh was elected as Sarpanch. The prosecutrix also admits in her statement that only few days after the incident, she informed about the same to her mother. She further admits in para 21 of her examination that the meeting took place in the village for about 8-10 times to consider the issue of lodging of FIR. She also admits that she used to state the names of different boys on different dates of village meetings and that

¶25

¶26

CRMP No. 869 of 2019

¶27

one such meeting had taken place in the house of Pappu Purena and that she named the accused Sohan and Parasram for the reason that Pappu Purena asked her to name these two accused persons. Thus, at different stages of her examination, the prosecutrix states that she has named all the three accused persons on the dictate and advise of Pappu Purena. She also admits that none of the accused has committed any offence against her.

¶28

In respect of age, Budhwanti Bai (PW-3), mother of the prosecutrix, admits that her elder daughter Laxmi is aged about 23-24 years and the prosecutrix is 1 ½ years younger to Laxmi. PW-3 also admits that no papers are available with her showing the age of the prosecutrix nor she recollects the exact date of birth of the prosecutrix.

¶29

Considering the nature of evidence and conduct of the prosecutrix, we are of the opinion that the present is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal against acquittal.

¶30

The CRMP deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Sd/- Sd/-

¶32

( Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Judge

¶33

Shyna

State of Chhattisgarh v. Parasrao Barley

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Parasrao Barley

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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Md. Imtiyaz Khan @ Saddam

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Pushp Kumar Sahu @ Manmohan Sahu @ Golu

Bund Kunwar (Complainant ) Vs Ramkhilawan Tiwari

Mithlesh Mahto Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Umesh Kumar

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Arjun Singh