Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramsharan Agariya

Chhattisgarh HC11 Sept 2023CRMP/406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., holding there were no compelling reasons to interfere with the trial court's conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges as the acquittal was not perverse.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the appeal and CRMP application were rejected and the acquittal was upheld.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramsharan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 406 of 2022

¶4

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ramkola, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramsharan Agariya S/o Jansai Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Kolhua, Outpost Wadrafnagar , Police Station Basantpur District Balrampur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent : None

¶11

Hon'ble Shri. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice.

¶14

11.09.2023

¶15

1 . By this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶16

“i) Set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 22.10.2021 by the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case. No. 06/2021 and convict the respondent appropriately.

¶17

ii) Proceed against the respondent Under Section390 of the Cr.P.C., during pendency of the instant appeal.

¶18

Iii) Pass such order, as it deems fit, in the circumstances of the

¶19

¶20

case.

¶21

2 . Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner/State.

¶22

3. This appeal is directed against the findings and judgment of acquittal dated 22.10.2021 by the Court of Special Judge(POCSO Act, 2012) Pratappur, Distt.Surajpur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 06/2021 acquitting the respondent from the charge punishable under/Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶23

4. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the complainant (mother of the prosecutrix) is resident of village Bonga and is doing the household works and labour works. On 16.07.2021, she made complaint at Police Station- Ramkola alleging that on 11.07.2021 at about 8-9 pm accusedRamsharan Agariya took the prosecutrix, on false assurance of marriage. The Police had registered the case and started investigation. During the course of investigation, the Police recovered the prosecutrix from possession of the accused at village Deosar, Distt.- Singrouli (M.P.). The Police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she has stated that the accused on false assurance of marriage, took her Wadrafnagar by motorcycle and thereafter, he took her village Deosar, Distt.- Singroull by Bus, where the accused made physical relation with her. The police registered the offence against the accused.

¶24

5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the respondent/accused was put to face charges before the trial Court. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 04 witnesses. During trial, the learned trial Court did not find the evidence sufficient to prove guilt of the respondent/accused and, therefore acquitted him from the offence. Hence this appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State submits that though the scope of

¶26

¶27

interference with the order of acquittal is very much limited but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. She also submits that it is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the order of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. She further submits that in the admission register (Ex. P-10), date of birth of the prosecutrix is clearly mentioned as 02.07.2005 and Jyoti Markam (PW-3), Incharge Head Master, has also proved the date of birth mentioned in the admission register (Ex. P-10). She again submits that the Prosecutrix (PW-1) has clearly stated in her statement that accused took her on a false assurance of marriage and made physical relations with her many times at different places and the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has also supported the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1). She lastly submits that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court is unjust and bad-in-law and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶28

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order of acquittal.

¶29

8. From the perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, it appears that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondents accused to the effect that the accused on false assurance of marriage, took her Wadrafnagar by motorcycle and thereafter he took her village Deosar, Distt.- Singroull by Bus, where the accused made physical relation with the minor prosecutrix. The prosecution further failed to prove that respondent - Ramsharan Agariya, after knowing fully well that the prosecutrix is minor girl age about of 16 years, has kept her with him. Further it has also not been established that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age,

¶30

¶31

rather it appears that the victim/prosecutrix was major girl and she is consenting party to the act of the respondent No.1. Thus, learned Special Judge after appreciating the entire evidence on record has arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondents/accused and in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the accused/respondents from aforesaid offences, are perverse or contrary to record. 9. The Supreme Court in case of Babu Vs. State of Kerala, [(2010) 9 SCC 189] has laid down the principle to be followed in appeal against the acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. and it has been held that Appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the views of Appellate Court may be the more probable one and held in para 12 as under:-

¶32

" 12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong

¶33

¶34

placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court."

¶35

10. Thereafter, in Anwar Ali & Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 10 SCC 166] Supreme Court has reviewed its earlier decisions including Babu (supra) reiterating the principles laid down therein.

¶36

11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the law on the appeal against acquittal and the scope and ambit of Section 378 Cr.P.C., we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove guilt of the respondent is based on evidence available on record. Thus, we do not find any compelling & substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.

¶37

13. Accordingly, CRMP, application seeking leave to appeal is rejected and the appeal is also dismissed.

¶38

Sd/Sd/ - (N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶39

amita

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramsharan Agariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramsharan Agariya

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

Puneshwar Chandra Vs Samundro

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Mahesh Bhagat

Shashilata Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Smt.Asha Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Suraj Bhan Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mahesh @ Chhotu