Allowed

Mukhdev Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2023CRA/271/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal challenging a conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC, the High Court set aside the trial court's decision. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that conviction cannot rest solely on the Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and acquitted the appellant due to prosecutrix admissions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set-aside; Appellant acquitted; Bail bonds kept operative per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Mukhdev Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No.271 of 2006

¶4

Mukhdev Ram, S/o Budhu Ram Rajwar, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Shyam Nagar, Police Station Pratappur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Pratappur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, Panel Lawyer

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶11

Judgment on Board

¶12

11.08.2023

¶13

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.04.2006 passed in Session Trial No.103/2005 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), wherein, the Appellant has been convicted as mentioned below:

¶14

Conviction	Sentence	In Default
U/s 376 (1) of the Indian Penal	Rigorous Imprisonment	In default of payment of fine
Code.	for 7 years with fine of	amount, additional

¶15

Rs.1,000/RI for 1 month.

¶16

¶17

2. In this case, prosecutrix (PW1) is a major married lady, aged about 40 years at the time of incident. She is sister-in-law of the Appellant herein. On 25.11.2004, the prosecutrix lodge FIR (Ex.D1) alleging therein that on 24.11.2004 about 5 PM, when she was alone in her house at that time, the Appellant who is her brother-inlaw, came there in a drunken condition and threw her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse with her and when she screamed, her mother-in-law came there. On seeing her, the Appellant fled away from the place of occurrence by snatching her saree. When husband of the prosecutrix returned, she narrated the entire incident to her husband thereafter, the matter was reported vide Ex.D1. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Snehlata Tirki (PW4), her medical report is Ex.P4. Statements of prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the charges against the Appellant under Sections 376(1) of the IPC. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. In statement of

¶18

3 the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the Appellant.

¶19

3. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶20

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that without having any sufficient evidence available on record, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant. He further submits that on perusal of statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that she was a consenting party and with the consent of the prosecutrix, the alleged act was committed by the Appellant and when her mother-in-law suddenly reached there, only after the matter was reported. He further submits that the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant only on the basis of statement of Appellant recorded under 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein, he pleaded false implication due to land dispute, therefore, conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable. Reliance has been placed by the Counsel on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Premchand Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal 211/2023 dated 03.03.2023.

¶21

¶22

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and supported the impugned judgment.

¶23

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, perused the entire record and gone through the statements of the witnesses with utmost circumspection.

¶24

7. In her Court statement, the prosecutrix (PW1) deposed that at the time of incident, when she was alone in her house at that time, the Appellant who is her brother-inlaw, came there in a drunken condition and threw her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse with her and when she screamed, her mother-in-law came there. On seeing her, the Appellant fled away from the place of occurrence by snatching her saree. In paragraph 21 of her cross-examination, this witness categorically admitted that when her mother-in-law reached the spot and asked who is there, then the appellant ran away. In paragraph 22 of her crossexamination, this witness further admitted that about ½ hour, the Appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. She further admitted that at that time, she remained silent and did not raise any objection. In paragraph 23 of her cross-examination, this witness

¶25

¶26

further admitted that when the Appellant taken her towards veranda of her house, she herself closed the door from inside. In paragraph 24, she again admitted that her mother-in-law suddenly reached veranda of their house and asked her that why she called the Appellant. In paragraph 34, this witness further admitted that when her mother-in-law reached the spot, at that time saree of the prosecutrix was not there and only her blouse and petticoat were there. Meaning thereby, she was without clothes at the time of incident. Her mother-in-law (PW2) also admitted that when she reached the spot, at that time the victim was only wearing petticoat.

¶27

8. Considering the admissions made by both the above witnesses, it is well established that the prosecutrix (PW1), who is major married lady, was the consenting party of the alleged act and with her consent, the alleged act of sexual intercourse was committed by the Appellant. Suddenly, when her mother-in-law reached the spot, only after she screamed.

¶28

9. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant, only on the ground that in statement of Appellant recorded under 313 of Cr.P.C., he pleaded false implication due to land dispute, as he did not take any defence regarding

¶29

¶30

consent of prosecutrix, therefore, only on this ground, the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant. In case of Premchand (Supra), it is observed and held by the Supreme Court as under:-

¶31

“15. f. the explanations that an accused may furnish cannot be considered in isolation but has to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of the section 313 statement(s);

¶32

g. statements of the accused in course of examination under Section 313, since not on oath, do not constitute evidence under section 3 of the Evidence Act, yet, the answers given are relevant for finding the truth and examining the veracity of the prosecution case;

¶33

h. statement(s) of the accused cannot be dissected to rely on the inculpatory part and ignore the exculpatory part and has/have to be read in the whole, inter alia, to test the authenticity of the exculpatory nature of admission; and i. if the accused takes a defence and proffers any alternate version of events or interpretation, the court has to carefully analyze and consider his statements;

¶34

10. In light of above law laid down by the Supreme Court, on examination of the facts of case in hand, it is quite clear that the act alleged to have been done by the appellant appears to have been done by the will of the prosecutrix though, the Appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has taken the defence of false implication but, his statement is not on oath, hence, it do not constitute evidence under section 3 of the Evidence Act. Further, as per law laid down by the

¶35

¶36

Supreme Court in case of Premchand (Supra), no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the conviction imposed by the Trial Court upon the Appellant is not sustainable. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 07/04/2006, passed in Sessions Trial No. 103/2005 by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, District-Surajpur (C.G.) is set-aside.

¶37

11. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed. The Appellant is acquitted from the charges framed against him.

¶38

12. It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶39

13. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶40

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶41

S hubham

Mukhdev Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhdev Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Ku. Archana And Ors.

Ku. Archana and Ors. Vs Basant Gupta and Anr.

Smt. Indiya Bai Vs Gajendra Kumar

Kavita Sahu Vs Krishna Kumar

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Parmeshwar and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Maheshwari and Ors.