Allowed

Manohar @ Manoj v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC16 Feb 2023CRA/1640/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an appeal against conviction under Section 366 IPC. The court acquitted the appellant, finding that the victim was abducted by another person (Safri Bai) and that the appellant did not play any substantive role in the abduction or imprisonment of the victim.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment is set aside/quashed. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 366 of IPC and set at liberty subject to the conditions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Manohar @ Manoj Vs State of C.G. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 1640 of 2000

¶5

Manohar @ Manoj S/o Battu Jat, aged about 26 years, R/o Malau Colony, Faridabad (Haryana)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

 State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant For State

¶11

: Mr. R. C. S. Deo, Advocate : Ms. Abhyunati Singh, P.L.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board

¶13

16.02.2023

¶14

1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Case No.158/98. Vide the impugned judgment the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years.

¶15

2. Perusal of records would indicate that the present appellant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.07.2000. He has already undergone incarceration of 2 years and 13 days. Subsequently, there was a default on the part of appellant in appearance and in spite of bailable warrants being issued, the appellant could not be traced. The previous counsel who had filed Vakalatnama has also moved an application withdrawing the same on account of no proper instruction being received from the appellant.

¶16

3. Considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2000 i.e. it is about

¶17

¶18

23 years old appeal, this Court thought it fit of entrusting the file to a panel lawyer from the High Court Legal Aid. Accordingly, the file was entrusted to Shri R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer from the Legal Aid and the matter is taken up for hearing today.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for appellant referring to the records submits that the case of prosecution itself all along is that the victim Geeta Bai in the instant case is a major lady aged more than 25 years. She was initially married to one Viranchi. Thereafter she is said to have left Viranchi and started staying with complainant PW-2 namely Dukhu Sarthi and had been staying with him for about five years time. In between, there was a child also born from the said relationship. However, the child is said to have subsequently expired. It is the further case of prosecution that on 06.05.1998 there was some quarrel between complainant Dukhu Sarthi and the victim PW-1 who were living together as husband and wife. It is said that initially Dukhu Sarthi left the house in anger and subsequently the victim PW1 also left the house and went to her parental home. At her parental home, the victim met her step brother Goverdhan who took the victim to his in-law’s place where the victim stayed for sometime. Thereafter, the step brother took her to his house where she stayed for a couple of days. From there it is said that the victim wanted to go to her maternal uncle’s house. In the process the victim came in contact with another lady namely Safri Bai who was the resident of village Banasia which is a nearby to village Mithumuda where the victim and complainant were residing. It is said that the victim PW-1 was taken by train and by bus to different places by the said Safri Bai and they travelled for two days and two nights. The said lady Safri Bai

¶20

¶21

took the victim along with her assuring of dropping at her maternal uncle’s house. However, instead of taking the victim PW-1 to her maternal uncle's house, Safri Bai is said to have taken her to Faridabad where Safri Bai left her in the company of some unknown persons who coerced and pressurized the victim to marry the present appellant and which though unwillingly the victim had exchanged garland. However, on the same day it is said that the victim escaped from the house of appellant and reached to the house of co-accused Vijay Bahadur from where she was recovered by the police authorities. This prosecution case is not disputed by the learned state counsel also.

¶22

5. Surprisingly, there is no justification whatsoever available as to why Safri Bai was not made an accused in the case. There is also no justification available on record as to how Vijay Bahadur was made an accused when it is the case of the victim herself that she was given shelter by the said Vijay Bahadur and that it was from his house that the police could recover the victim, more particularly there was no allegation whatsoever by the victim against co-accused Vijay Bahadur.

¶23

6. Meanwhile, since the victim PW-1 had left the house of the complainant Dukhu Sarthi on 06.05.1998, the complainant had lodged an FIR on 19.06.1998. In the said FIR also there is no mention of the role played by the present appellant whereas in the FIR it has been mentioned that the victim was found to be in company of Safri Bai. Subsequently, the Police could recover the victim from the house of co-accused Vijay Bahadur on 24.06.1998. Thereafter charge sheet was filed and the matter was put to trail before the Court of the

¶24

¶25

Sessions Judge, Raigarh, where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 158/98.

¶26

7. The prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses. There is no evidence led by the appellant in his defence. After recording the statement of appellant under Section 313 CrPC the Sessions Court vide the impugned judgment found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 366 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years. It is this order which is under challenge.

¶27

8. Learned counsel for appellant on going through the evidence and referring to the evidence of PW-1 in particular submits that from the plain reading of the statement of victim PW-1 herself it would clearly indicate that there was no abduction/kidnapping as such made by the present appellant. It is in fact Safri Bai who is said to have taken the victim from her village. It is Safri Bia in whose custody the victim was for a period of 2 days and 2 nights before she was brought to the house of appellant.

¶28

9. It is also necessary to take note of the statement of PW-1 the victim which would clearly indicate that even before the victim had come in touch with Safri Bai she had left the company of PW-2 the complainant and was away from his house staying along with her step brother Goverdhan initially in the house of the in-laws of her step brother and subsequently in the house of the step brother himself. It is thereafter that she voluntarily moved out from that village and came in the company of Safri Bai and went along with her. According to the counsel for appellant, there is no allegation whatsoever levelled against the appellant of having used any force, coercion or allurement at any point of time nor is there any statement made that the entire

¶29

¶30

alleged kidnapping or abduction of the victim PW-1 was done at the behest of the present appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that there is medical evidence available on record to show that the appellant who is physically disabled to the extent of 80% with which under any normal circumstances appellant could not abduct or kidnap the victim. It is the further contention of the counsel for appellant that even from the case of prosecution and the statement of PW-1 it would reveal that the victim was not in any manner confined in the custody of the present appellant, as she lived freely at the house of appellant as per her own statement before taking shelter in the house of coaccused Vijay Bahadur. For all these reasons, counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

¶31

10. State counsel, on the other hand, referring to the statement of the victim PW-1 submits that when Safri Bai had taken the victim at Faridabad, there at knife point the group of persons forced the victim PW-1 to exchange garland so as to marry the present appellant, which is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 366 of IPC. Therefore the impugned judgment does not warrant interference and prayed for rejection of the appeal.

¶32

11. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records what is evident is that the FIR was lodged on 06.05.1998 by complainant Dukhu Sarthi, the person who was staying with the victim as husband and wife. The statement clearly indicates that there was a quarrel between the complainant and the victim and the victim of her own left the company of complainant Dukhu Sarthi. The prosecution case reveals that the victim PW-1 had left the

¶33

¶34

company of complainant and went to her parental home and stayed there for a few days in company of her step brother. Thereafter, she left the village in the garb of going to her maternal uncle’s house. In the course, she came in company of Safri Bai who deceived the victim PW-1 and in the garb of showing the house of maternal uncle of PW-1 took her to Faridabad. There it is said that Safri Bai left the victim at the house where the appellant was staying even without informing the victim PW-1. Thus, from the case of prosecution it is evident that it was Safri Bai who is said to have abducted or kidnapped the victim and thereafter left her at the house where the appellant was staying.

¶35

12. The fact that the victim could easily run away from the house of appellant shows that there was no confinement whatsoever and she could easily move out of the said house. This would further show that there was no coercion, pressure or force used by the appellant in keeping the victim PW-1 in his custody. Further from the statement of PW-1 herself it would reveal that except for a very short period of time the victim PW-1 was not in the company of appellant at all and that she had immediately left the house of appellant. This would further reveal that except for the date on which she met the appellant, there was no role attributed whatsoever on the appellant so far as the abduction or kidnapping is concerned. The prosecution case itself is that it is Safri Bai who took victim PW-1 and is said to have sold her to somebody in Faridabad who in turn compelled and forced the victim to marry the appellant.

¶36

13. From all the aforesaid admitted factual matrix both from the evidence as also from the record it clearly gives an indication of the

¶37

¶38

appellant having not played any role whatsoever in taking the victim PW-1 out of the house of complainant PW-2 and thereafter taking her to various places for a considerable days in between. Whereas it is the case of the victim herself that she was in fact deceived by Safri Bai and it is Safri Bai who had taken the victim from village Mithumunda to Faridabad. The victim was in fact in the company of the said Safri Bai for a period of more than 2 days and 2 nights. Nowhere was the name of present appellant reflected or the role of the present appellant reflected by the prosecution or by any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. This Court thus has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the ingredients necessary for making out a case of kidnapping more particularly an offence under Section 366 of IPC are not available from the evidence and the materials collected by the prosecution in the course of investigation and trial before the Court below.

¶39

14. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Case No.158/98 deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 366 of IPC. He is set at liberty subject to the conditions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

¶40

15. The present appeal stands allowed.

¶41

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶42

Khatai

Manohar @ Manoj v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar @ Manoj v. State of C.G.

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

Kondaram and Ors. Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Mohan Lal Sinha Vs Shri Rituraj Raghuvanshi

Jawahar Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tulsi Das Manikpuri, Vs Barsan Das Manikpuri

Naveen Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Munna Dubey Vs the State of C.G