Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Umesh Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC23 Sept 2019CRMP/909/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a CRMP by the State seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal, held that since the trial court found the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the prosecutrix was under 18 years of age, the petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against acquittal is not granted; CRMP No. 909 of 2019 is dismissed.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Umesh Kumar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

CRMP No. 909 of 2019

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 909 of 2019

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Kukdur District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Umesh Kumar S/o Dashruram Radekar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Awaspara, Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Accused)

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner

¶12

Mr. Vikash Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer

¶13

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

¶14

Order On Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶15

23/9/2019

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

The trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of

¶19

¶20

CRMP No. 909 of 2019

¶21

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶22

Also heard on admission.

¶23

From the evidence available on record, it appears that the prosecutrix and the accused were having an affair. The accused allegedly abducted the prosecutrix and they stayed together for about 15 days at Bhopal. In respect of age, the prosecution relied on Dakhil-Kharij register, in which, her date of birth is mentioned as 15.10.1999. However, the Headmaster of the School examined as PW-2 stated that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was informed by her father, whereas, her father examined as PW-8 is not definite as to on what basis he informed the date of birth at the time of admission of her daughter in the school.

¶24

The defence has putforth the copy of Kotwari register carrying the entry of the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 6.3.1997. Thus, there being contradictory documentary evidence in respect of age of the prosecutrix, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove in conclusive terms that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident.

¶25

Since consent on the part of the prosecutrix while maintaining an affair and allowing the accused to have sexual intercourse, is borne out from the evidence on record, age of the prosecutrix assumes significance. Therefore, for the failure of the prosecution to prove that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years

¶26

¶27

CRMP No. 909 of 2019

¶28

of age on the date of the incident, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal against acquittal.

¶29

The CRMP deserves to be and is hereby is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/- Sd/-

¶31

( Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Judge

¶32

Shyna

State of Chhattisgarh v. Umesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Umesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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 Parasrao Barley

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Arjun Singh