Allowed

Maheshwar Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jun 2023CRA/44/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against conviction for rape and offence under the SC/ST Act. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant due to doubts regarding the chain of custody for the blood sample used in DNA testing and inconsistencies in hospital admission documents showing a different husband's name.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act set aside; appellant acquitted and directed for release.

Maheshwar Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 44 of 2020

¶5

Maheshwar Das Manikpuri S/o Thanwar Das Manikpuri Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Dhourabhata, Thana- Kasdol, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station- Kasdol District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant For State/respondent

¶11

: Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate. : Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, P.L.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, J. & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

Per Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri,

¶15

Date – 13/06/2023

¶16

This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 03.01.2020 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Baloda Bazar, District- BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.) in Special Sessions case No. 08/2019, wherein the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 of IPC and 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced as under:-

¶17

Offence Under Section	Sentence
376 of IPC	R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01 year.
3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989	year. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶18

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused/appellant came in contact with the prosecutrix in the year 2014, they developed love relation and

¶19

¶20

subsequently on the pretext of marriage the accused/appellant used to commit sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Subsequently, the accused performed marriage with another girl and even after the marriage he used to call prosecutrix and on repeated phone calls when she received the call, accused told her that he was forced to marry and he is going to leave his wife. Thereafter, on the pretext of marriage the accused/appellant again developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix in consequent thereof she became pregnant in the year 2018. The prosecutrix requested him for marriage but on some pretext or other it was avoided by the appellant/accused and ultimately on 18.01.2019 she delivered a child at Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedakar Hospital, Raipur. Thereafter, the prosecutrix requested him to take her along with him but the appellant refused to recognize, in a consequence thereof a written report was made at police station Kasdol on 24.01.2019 vide Ex.-P/11 and the FIR was registered vide Ex.-P/12. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶21

During the course of trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and claim to be tried. The prosecution on their behalf examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents including the DNA report of the child and the DNA report of the accused. The trial Court having convinced of the fact that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage, the conviction order was passed on 03.01.2020 by the trial Court in Special Sessions Case No. 08/2019. Hence this appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecutrix in this case is a major lady aged about 21 years and she was a consenting party. He would further submit that the conviction is based upon the DNA test but when the accused was locked in jail how the blood sample was taken. The prosecution has failed to establish that chain to prove that the blood sample was that of accused/appellant wherein the DNA matched with the child. He would further

¶23

¶24

submit that the conduct of the prosecutrix would be clear from the documents Ex.D-1 to D-6 wherein, when the delivery took place she has shown the name of the husband as one Satish Kumar. He would submit that under the circumstance the appellant has been falsely implicated as the doubts have not been made clear by the prosecution, therefore, the conviction cannot be sustainable and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶25

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order of conviction is well merited. He referred to the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-6) to submit that she was being sexually exploited on the pretext of marriage and even after performing marriage with another lady, the appellant continued relation with the prosecutrix, this lead to pregnancy, thereafter the appellant denied to accept. He would further submit that the DNA test report which is filed as Ex.-P-28 upon the fact that biological father of the child is appellant who was born out of the relation therefore that statement of the prosecutrix would be relevant to maintain the conviction by the trial Court.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the statements and the evidence adduced.

¶27

There is no dispute about the fact that prosecutrix was not a minor. In entirety the statement of the prosecutrix looms large on the issue that on the pretext of the marriage, the appellant committed sexual intercourse and continued with the relation and eventually did not marry. She further states that the appellant performed marriage with another girl and thereafter he continued his relation which lead to her pregnancy and child birth.

¶28

Perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix would show that she stated the relationship between the parties started from 2014 and some time in 2018, she became pregnant out of the relation with the appellant. The pregnancy lead to birth of a child at hospital named Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedakar, Raipur. Perusal of the documents signed at the time of admission by the prosecutrix would show that the

¶29

¶30

name of the husband was shown as one Satish Kumar (document Ex.-D-1 to D-6) and a baby girl was born. In the admission card of hospital which is filed as Ex.-D5, the husband’s name of prosecutrix was shown as initially Satish Kumar which was subsequently corrected by handwriting as Maheshwar Das. How such correction in name was carried out it is not made clear by prosecution with respect to all the other documents of the maternity service of the hospital, it shows name of Satish Kumar as husband of prosecutrix. The appellant being major, forceful sexual intercourse cannot be inferred instead if the consent was obtained on the false assurance on pretext of marriage that could have considered.

¶31

The statement of the prosecutrix further shows that out of the relationship when she became pregnant she delivered a child in the hospital. In the hospital documents, name of the husband is shown as Satish Kumar which creates a doubt. The prosecution in this case further to prove the connectivity of parenthood with the child that of appellant has relied on DNA test report which is filed as Ex.P-28. The report purport that the biological father of the child, namely Ishika is Maheshwar Das, the accused and the prosecutrix.

¶32

According to the prosecution, to substantiate DNA test the blood sample of the accused was taken vide Ex.-P-31 on 02.05.2019. The arrest memo of accused Ex.-P-9 is of 19.03.2019. Therefore the period of time shows that when the blood sample was taken, the accused was in jail custody. In the Statement of I.O. (PW-11), at para 23 he admits that no document is placed to show how the appellant was taken out from the jail to get the blood sample. No official from the jail wherein the appellant was locked was examined. He also admit at paras 23 & 24 that to obtain the blood sample he had not authorized any police officer. Therefore, the blood sample collection which was made by Ex.-P-31 by one Dr. Sourabh Verma, it is not clear before us as to from whom and where the blood sample was taken. The signature on the arrest memo of Maheshwar Das, and the signature appended to the consent form for blood sample by Maheshwar Das, as

¶33

¶34

compared to signature appended to arrest memo on examination shows difference. Therefore to prove the fact conclusively that the blood sample of Maheshwar Das collected on 02.05.2019 by taking him out from jail in a procedure prescribed by rules has not been categorically proved beyond reasonable doubt.

¶35

The entire conviction by the trial Court relates back to the DNA test along with the statement of the prosecutrix. The documents filed Ex.-D-1 to D-6 at the time of admission of delivery of prosecutrix shows some other name as that of her husband was written in admission form. When the prosecution relied on the DNA report to prove that the paternity of the child and the accused was same, the blood sample report which was obtained from the accused/appellant should have been conclusively proved have obtained from central jail or otherwise. The conduct of the prosecutrix wherein she had named some other person as her husband during the course of delivery also raises a doubt to make the statement porous.

¶36

In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the judgment passed by the trial Court below cannot be sustainable and accordingly, benefit of doubt should have been given in favour of the appellant.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges levelled against him. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶38

Sd/Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶39

H.L. Sahu

Maheshwar Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheshwar Das Manikpuri 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

Sudheer Tiwari Vs Smt Prerna Tiwari

Kejuram Vs (Deleted) Surja Bai (Dead)

Hitesh Dawra Vs Mrs. Navya Dawra @ Shweta Dewani

Ritesh Kumar Nag Vs Smt. Sihendri Kashyap

L.D. Masulkar Vs Smt. Uttara

Manoj Kumar Sharaf Vs Smt. Sarita Sharaf