Dismissed

Smt. Premiya Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jan 2024ACQA/108/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an acquittal appeal filed by a prosecutrix. The court upheld the Sessions Judge's acquittal, noting it was a possible view supported by precedent due to the lack of corroboration and hostile prosecution witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the acquittal of the respondent/accused stands upheld.

Smt. Premiya Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 108 of 2017

¶5

Smt. Premiya Bai W/o Shri Sanju Prajapati, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Umri Pikari, Police Station Maihar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶9

Indrapal S/o Ananta Prajapati Aged About 30 Years Occupation Labourer, R/o Village Umari, Pikari, Police Station Maihar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh, At Present R/o Village Baiji, Police Station Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Appellant	Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Advocate
For Respondent /State	Mr. Anand Verma, Dy. GA
For Respondent No.2	Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate

¶12

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board

¶13

11/1/2024

¶14

This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.4.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.31/2015 by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 456, 354 and 506 of the IPC.

¶15

¶16

Prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant-victim/prosecutrix (PB) is doing labour work. The prosecutrix and her husband came to village (B) for earning livelihood in a brick kiln and after constructing a small hut, they were residing in such hut. The respondent/accused was residing in the nearby hut. The electricity connection was provided to the hut of the victim-complainant from the hut of the respondent/accused. On 5.12.2012, her husband (S) (PW-4) had gone for bringing labourers to village Mungeli. The prosecutrix was all alone in her house along with her 6 months’ old child. In the night, when the prosecutrix - PW-3 was sleeping, at about 8:30 p.m. in the night, she felt the touch of somebody on her feet and she pretended that a dog had entered her hut. After sometime, again somebody touched her body and thereafter, gagged her mouth, on which, she raised hues and cries. On hearing her sound, her neighbour (M) (PW1) reached there and switched on the light and found that that the respondent/accused was present in the hut. Thereafter, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to M (PW-1). The prosecutrix told the respondent/accused that she will inform about such misdeed to her husband, on which, he threatened to break his arms and legs. At that time, her sister-in-law ( Jethani ) (UB) - PW-2 also reached there and the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her also. After arrival of her husband, the prosecutrix lodged the FIR on 7.12.2012 at Police Station Bemetara.

¶17

After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 5

¶18

¶19

witnesses. The respondent/accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not adduced any defence evidence. After evaluation of the evidence, the CJM, Bemetara in Criminal Case No.973/2012 convicted the respondent/accused vide judgment dated 29.7.2015 and awarded sentence of RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for each offence with usual default stipulation, against which, the respondent/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.31/2015, in which, vide the impugned judgment, the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges. Hence, against the impugned judgment, the present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix/victim before this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant/victim would submit that the learned Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and the learned trial Judge has assigned cogent reasons and convicted the accused. The version of the prosecutrix is believable and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the finding arrived at by the Appellate Court is not sustainable. Considering all these aspects, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow this acquittal appeal and convict the accused.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused would support the impugned judgment.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State would submit that the State has not challenged the judgment of the Appellate Court.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record

¶24

¶25

with utmost circumspection.

¶26

The prosecutrix (PW-3) deposed that on the date of the incident, in the night at 8:30 p.m., while she was sleeping in her hut along with her child, the respondent/accused entered into the hut and touched her body with bad intention, on which, she raised hues and cries and on hearing her sound, her neighbour (M) – PW-1 reached there and switched on the light, and saw the respondent/accused present in the hut. PW-1(M) has not supported the version of the prosecutrix. PW-2 (UB), who is the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix, has also denied that any such incident was informed to her by the prosecutrix. PW-1 (M) and PW-2 (UB) have completely turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶27

The prosecutrix (PW-3) stated that on the date of the incident, her husband had gone out of station and she informed about the incident over telephone to her husband, who told her to not lodge the report at night. On the subsequent day, after the return of the husband, in the evening, she lodged the FIR. On the other hand, PW4 (husband) stated he reached home in the evening on the same date of the incident and thereafter, his wife narrated the incident to him and subsequently, they had gone to lodge the FIR.

¶28

The learned Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment held that the evidence of the prosecutrix has is not supported by any independent witness and the manner in which, the prosecutrix has narrated the incident, does not inspire confidence to convict the accused on the basis of her sole testimony and thus, acquitted him.

¶29

¶30

For the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Appellate Court is a possible one, as held in the matter of Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶31

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶32

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶33

Judge

¶34

Shyna

Smt. Premiya Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Premiya Bai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Sangtani @ Ricky Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Kumhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Damayanti Debta Vs Sheshdeo Debta (Dead)

Devid Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bindo Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Dhaniram Khairwar