Allowed

Jagdish v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2023CRA/360/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a rape conviction, the High Court of Chhattisgarh acquitted the appellant by extending benefit of doubt due to unexplained delay in lodging FIR, hostility of independent witnesses, and lack of corroborative evidence including medical report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; appellant acquitted from charges.

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

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2006

¶5

Jagdish S/o. Mohan Sai Ghashi, aged about 35 years, R/o Village – Lavkashpur, PS- Kusami, Distt -Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station -Kusami, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Amit Singh, PL.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

01.08.2023.

¶14

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.04.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.145/04 by the learned Sessions Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: -

¶15

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC')	R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 01 month.

¶16

In the present case, prosecutrix/victim (PW-9) was major married lady.

¶17

¶18

Case of prosecution, in brief is that on 14.08.2002 at about 07 p.m, prosecutrix went to the grocery shop of appellant to buy some grocery articles. As appellant was alone in his shop, he took her inside the shop, closed the door/shutter and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. Next day the prosecutrix disclosed about incident to some villagers, however, since her husband (Loknath) was residing in Ambikapur to earn livelihood , she could not lodge report against the appellant. After one month of incident, when her husband returned home, she narrated the entire incident to him and thereafter report was lodged in the concerned Police Station on 09.09.2002. Based upon which, FIR was registered against the appellant and he was taken into custody.

¶19

Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She was medically examined by Dr. J. V. Kujur (PW-7) and her examination report is Ex.P-5. Statements of witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and the trial Court framed the charges against the appellant.

¶20

In order to prove the charges against the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, in his defence, appellant has not examined any witness.

¶21

After completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Trial Court convicted the appellant only on the basis of statement of prosecutrix. Incident was of 14.08.2022 and FIR was lodged on 09.09.2002, but delay in lodging FIR has not been duly explained by the prosecutrix. At the time of recording of FIR, PW-8/mother-in-law of the prosecutrix was present with her in the Police Station, but she has not supported the case of prosecution. Other witnesses to whom the prosecutrix allegedly narrated the alleged incident on the next day, i.e ,(PW-2/Kalmania & PW-6/Upendra Dixit), have also not supported the case of prosecution. Husband of prosecutrix was not examined by the prosecution. Medical report of prosecutrix also does not support her statement. Therefore, only on the basis of suspicious statement of prosecutrix not duly corroborated by any other evidence, conviction of appellant is not sustainable. Hence, it is prayed that appellant may be acquitted from the aforesaid offences.

¶24

Learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of material and evidence available on record and the same requires no interference.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record minutely.

¶26

Undisputedly, incident is of 14.08.2002 and FIR has been lodged on 09.09.2002. As FIR has been lodged by prosecutrix after lapse of 25 days, a close scrutiny of statement of prosecutrix is required. Pros-

¶27

¶28

ecutrix in her Court statement deposed that on 14.08.2002 at about 07:00 p.m, she went to the grocery shop of appellant to buy Potatoes and Oil, at that time appellant was alone in his shop. He took her inside the shop and closed the door/shutter and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. When she raised alarm, appellant freed her. On the next morning, prosecutrix intimated the incident to Upendra (PW-6), Jairam (PW-4) and his wife Kalmania (PW-2), but these witnesses have not corroborated the above statement of prosecutrix and turned hostile.

¶29

Prosecutrix in her Court statement has stated that as on the date of alleged incident her husband had gone to Ambikapur to earn livelihood, therefore, she could not lodge FIR against appellant. After one month of the incident, when her husband returned home, she intimated him about the incident and thereafter matter was reported.

¶30

Prosecutrix during her cross-examination, admitted the fact that herin-laws were returned to the house after eight days of the alleged incident, but she did not inform them about the incident. She also admitted the fact that she did not go to Ambikapur to inform her husband about the alleged incident. Above conduct of prosecutrix appears to be doubtful. Further when the alleged incident was informed by the prosecutrix to her husband, then why her husband did not go to Police Station with his wife, this fact has also not been explained, rather husband of prosecutrix has not been examined by prosecution before the trial Court.

¶31

As per contents of FIR, PW-8/Mankuwar (mother-in-law of prosecutrix) had come to the Police Station with prosecutrix, but in her Court state-

¶32

¶33

ment she has not supported the above version of prosecution and turned hostile. Medical report (Ex.P-5) of prosecutrix also does not support the case of prosecution.

¶34

Considering the nature of evidence available on record, the fact that there is unexplained delay of 25 days in lodging FIR; independent witnesses namely Upendra (PW-6), Jairam (PW-4), Kalmania (PW-2) as also PW-8/Mankuwar (mother-in-law of prosecutrix) have not supported the case of prosecution. Without there being corroboration from other evidence/witnesses, only on the basis of statement of prosecutrix conviction of appellant would not be safe, and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt.

¶35

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by extending benefit of doubt to appellant. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges.

¶36

CC as per rules.

¶37

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶38

J/-

Jagdish v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoj Rizvi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kapil and Two Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akash Kumar @ Sonu Chandrikapure Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Yatindra Kumar Soni Vs Mr. Abhay Jaiswal

Sewaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madan Kaiwart Vs State Of Chhattisgarh