Smt. Sukrita Diwakar Vs Bhagwat Shrivas

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 219 of 2015

¶5

Smt. Sukrita Diwakar W/o Ramkhilawan Diwakar Aged About 25 Years, by caste-Satnami, R/o Kotadabri, Tah. Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant Complainant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 - Bhagwat Shrivas S/o Siyaram Shrivas Aged About 35 Years, Occupation Police Constable, R/o Village Aamapali, P.S. Baradwar, At Present residing At Police Colony, Janjgir, P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (C.G.)

¶9

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O., P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For the appellant	: Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate.
For respondent No. 1	: Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate.
For State/respondent No. 2	: Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G. A.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

21.02.2024

¶15

This acquittal appeal is filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.10.2015 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Janjgir (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 53/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short, “the Act, 1989”) and Section 354 of IPC.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that on 31.01.2014 the complainant

¶17

2

¶18

went to the Court to collect her maintenance amount from the CCD as she is a deserted woman. While going back to her village the respondent/accused Bhagwat Shrivas who is police constable and working at Champa, came there and forcefully stopped her and tried to outrage her modesty by holding her hands and arms. He also threatened and abused her. The complainant went to the police station but her report was not entertained. On the basis of written report F.I.R (Ex. P-2) offence was registered against the respondent/accused and after completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against the respondent/accused before the Special Court. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, 1989 and in alternate Section 354 of IPC.

¶19

The prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused/respondent. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC and the respondent also examined himself in his defense.

¶20

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the respondents from all charges. Hence, this appeal filed by the victim/prosecutrix.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred to believe the defense version of the accused and erred to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 complainant and PW-2 her mother. Both the witnesses have

¶22

3

¶23

categorically stated against the accused and his participation in the crime involved. The learned trial Court has come to an erroneous conclusion that the complainant is in habit of lodging false report against the persons. The learned trial Court has come to an erroneous conclusion regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R as it is very clear that the accused is constable working in the Police Department where the complainant had gone to lodge report but the same could not be registered by the superior officers of the respondent. As such, the impugned judgment is bad-in-law, unjust, improper and liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court appreciated all oral and documentary evidence minutely and passed the impugned order properly. The finding of the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

¶25

Reliance has been placed on the Hon'ble Apex Court’s judgment dated 26.03.2019 in the matter of Ganga Prasad Mahto versus State of Bihar and another in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. No. 8664 of 2014.

¶26

Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

It is clear from F.I.R that the incident took place on 31.01.2014

¶28

4

¶29

and date of filing of F.I.R is 21.11.2014. As per the appellant, his report was not registered by the concerned officer of Police Station on the same day. As such, he filed a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police and thereby he explained his delay before the learned trial Court.

¶30

10.It is clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that she filed written report (Ex. P-1). However, it is clear from Ex. P-1 that this report was written by the complainant on 21.11.2014 and date of F.I.R Ex. P-2 is 31.01.2014. The complainant also admitted this fact that she lodged complaint against other persons also and the learned trial Court appreciated the evidence of complainant and her mother and found that the prosecutrix was in habit of implicating other persons by making allegations and further found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶31

11. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Ganga Prasad Mahto versus State of Bihar held in para 11 as under:-

¶32

“11. First, the complainant was not examined by the Doctor after the alleged incident. Second, in absence of any medical examination done, the prosecution did not examine any doctor in the trial in support of their case; Third, it was not disputed that similar type of complaints were being made in past by the complainant against other persons also and such complaints were later found false; Fourth, it was also not disputed that there was enmity between the appellant and the husband of the prosecutrix, due to which their relations were not cordial; Fifth, it had also come in evidence that the prosecutrix

¶33

5

¶34

was in habit of implicating all the persons by making wild allegations of such nature against those with whom she or/and her husband were having any kind of disputes; Sixth, there was no eye witness to the alleged incident and the one, who was cited as witness, i.e., PW-2 was a chance witness on whose testimony, a charge of rape could not be established; and lastly, so far as PW-1, husband of the complainant, is concerned, he admitted that he was away and returned to village the next day morning of the incident.”

¶35

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated

¶36

12.02.2024 passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka held in para 36 as under:-

¶37

36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-

¶38

“(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive-inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

¶39

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

¶40

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall

¶41

6

¶42

ordinarily be followed;

¶43

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

¶44

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

¶45

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”

¶46

13. In the light of the above judgment, in the present case it is clear

¶47

that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. As such, this acquittal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶48

14. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

Judge

Uttej

Smt. Sukrita Diwakar v. Bhagwat Shrivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sukrita Diwakar v. Bhagwat Shrivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.puroshattam Lal Chandrakar Vs The Vice - Chancellor And Ors.

Ram Prasad Ghasia Vs Teeja Bai Sidar and Ors.

Martin Vs Khileshwar Prasad

Mithai Lal Awdheliya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dainik Bhaskar, Raipur Vs Yash Oberoi

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Vasudeo @ Baso Dewangan