State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Uttam Vyapari

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Acquittal Appeal No.184 of 2015

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Pakhanjur - District North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Uttam Vyapari S/o Niranjan Vyapari Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Ujala, Police Station Pakahanjur, District- North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh ----Respondent

¶7

For Appellant/State:	Shri Anand Verma, Dy. G.A.
For Respondents:	Shri Alok Tiwari on behalf of Shri
	Parag Kotecha, Advocates.

¶8

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment On Board

¶9

04.01.2024

¶10

This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), North Bastar, Kanker in Sessions Trial No.93/2013 whereby, the accused/ Respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC for committing cruelty towards deceased daughter-in-law namely Kamla Vyapari as also abetting her to commit suicide.

¶11

Prosecution case in brief is that on 28.06.2013, the accused/ Respondent, who is the father-in-law of deceased Kamla Vyapari

¶12

2

¶13

has given merg intimation that the marriage between the deceased and his son namely Vishwajeet took place one and half years prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that on 27.06.2013 at about 8.00 am, he had gone to Kapsi market and his daughter-in-law was alone in the house and when he returned from the market in the evening, he found that his daughter-in-law Kamla Vyapari committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of a dupatta. Upon such information, after issuing notice, merg inquest (Ex.P-1), nakshapanchayatnama (Ex.P-2) and spot map (Ex.P-18) were prepared. After completion of merg inquiry, FIR (Ex.P-16) was registered on 29.06.2013 and charge sheet has been filed. Deceased Kamla Vyapari was subjected to postmortem (Ex.P-12) by Dr. NR Navratan (PW-10) who opined that nature of death is suicidal hanging.

¶14

Statement of the witnesses was recorded. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused/Respondent has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and not adduced any defence witness. After evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Court has acquitted the Respondent of the aforesaid charges. Hence, this Appeal.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the trial

¶16

3

¶17

Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and as the deceased was subjected to forcible rape by the accused/Respondent, who is her father-in-law, therefore, she took such an extreme step of ending her life, as such, the offence under Sections 498 and 306 IPC is squarely made out and prays to allow the Appeal and convict the accused/Respondent.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the accused/Respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the mother of deceased Kamla Vyapari namely Laxmi Sheel (PW-4) was not in contact with the deceased till 5 months of the marriage of the deceased and during the lifetime, there was no such complaint by deceased Kamla Vyapari or any other family members about the sexual exploitation by her fatherin-law i.e. the accused/Respondent. He further submits that even during the inquest proceeding, no such complaint was made and there were serious contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses, therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the Respondent and as such, no interference is required and prays to dismiss the Appeal.

¶19

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection.

¶20

It is not disputed that marriage of deceased Kamla Vyapari was solemnized with the son of the accused/Respondent 1 ½ years

¶21

4

¶22

prior to the incident dated 27.06.2013 and the matter has been reported by the accused/Respondent, father-in-law of the deceased to the police on 28.06.2013 and based on such information, criminal law set into motion and the inquest proceeding was done. After issuing notice (Ex.P-1), at the time of said proceeding, the mother of the deceased Laxmi Sheel (PW-4) was also present but there was no such statement that during the life time, the deceased had ever made any complaint about sexual exploitation by her father-in-law, the accused/Respondent. Later on, at the time of adducing evidence, the mother of the deceased Laxmi Sheel (PW-4) has developed such story that prior to her daughter’s death, she (the deceased) informed her that her father-in-law made forceful physical relation with her due to which, she became pregnant. This witness was declared hostile and at para-2 of her deposition, she has stated that for the last 2 months, the accused/ Respondent developed physical relation with her deceased daughter. At para-3 of her cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that she had gone to the in-laws’ house of her daughter only after 5 months of her marriage and she was not aware as to why her daughter died. She further admits that during such period, she had no contact with her daughter. Other witness namely Gourang Sheel (PW-3) is the cousin of deceased Kamla Vyapari to whom the mother of the deceased Laxmi Sheel (PW-4)

¶23

5

¶24

had informed about the illicit relation of the accused/Respondent. Vidhan Sheel (PW-6), the real brother of deceased Kamla Vyapari, in his cross-examination, has stated that he is not aware as to why his sister died. Therefore, there are serious contradictions and omissions in the statement of the close relatives of deceased Kamla Vyapari and at the time of the inquest proceeding also, no such statement or complaint has been made that the accused/Respondent has committed any wrong with deceased Kamla Vyapari. Even in the postmortem report (Ex.P-12), there is no such finding recorded that at the time of death, the deceased was carrying any pregnancy.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below is a possible view as the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

¶26

In the matter of Jafarudheen and Others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440, while dealing with the scope of Appeal against acquittal, the following was observed at para-25, which reads as under:-

¶27

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus,

¶28

6

¶29

the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶30

10. In view of above as also considering the evidence available

¶31

on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below as such, the accused/Respondent was rightly acquitted of the aforesaid charges, therefore, no interference is required. Accordingly, the Appeal, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶34

Priya

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Uttam Vyapari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Uttam Vyapari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Agrawal Vs Mohan Lal Agrawal And Ors.

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Munnilal

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajendra Shukla @ Rajjan Shukla And Ors.

Cypirion Jacob Vs Vijay John

Teekaram Sahu Vs Yogeshwar @ Bhagtram Sahu and Ors.

Anil Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh