Allowed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Mukesh Ojha

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2020CRMP/954/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court held condonation of delay in filing the Cr.M.P. due to 230 days lapse. It upheld the trial court's acquittal but granted leave to file a regular appeal, citing the parents' testimony regarding abduction despite the prosecutrix's death in trial.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of I.A. No.01/2020 for condonation of delay; registration of regular acquittal appeal.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mukesh Ojha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

CRMP No. 954 of 2020

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 954 of 2020

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mukesh Ojha S/o Sukhnandan Ojha Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Sargawa, Bangalipara, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Sukhnandan Ojha (as per the impugned judgment – Sukhranjan Ojha) S/o Surendra Ojha Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Sargawa, Bangalipara, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Applicant-State :- Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Addl. A.G.

¶13

Proceedings through Video Conferencing

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya

¶15

Order On Board By

¶16

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶17

06/08/2020

¶18

On due consideration delay of 230 days in filing of the Cr.M.P. is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2020, application for

¶19

¶20

CRMP No. 954 of 2020

¶21

condonation of delay in filing of the instant Cr.M.P. is allowed.

¶22

The trial Court has acquitted the accused – Mukesh Ojha of the charges under Sections 363, 366, 506 (Part II), 376(2)(ढ), 376(2)(झ) of the I.P.C.; Sections 3(क), 5(ठ) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 while acquitted accused – Sukhranjan Ojha of the charges under Sections 363, 366 क, 506 (Part – II), 368 of the I.P.C.; Section 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶23

Although, the prosecutrix has not been examined before the trial Court on account of her death in course of trial, her parents examined as PW-2 Sadhan Maal and PW-3 Savita Maal have deposed that accused – Mukesh Ojha abducted the prosecutrix, who was aged about 14 years on the date of incident, her date of birth as mentioned in the Dakhil Khareej Register and mark sheet of class V is 17.07.2001, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal.

¶24

Accordingly, the Cr.M.P. is allowed.

¶25

Let regular acquittal appeal be registered and the same be placed for consideration in the next week.

¶26

SD/SD/( Prashant Kumar Mishra ) ( Gautam Chourdiya ) Judge Judge

¶27

Ayushi

State of Chhattisgarh v. Mukesh Ojha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Mukesh Ojha

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

Nirmal Kumar Jhadi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sherrin Jacob Vs Union of India

Ganduram Tekam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushila Sen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Vs Sushila Sen And Anr.

Manohar Yadav Vs State