Dismissed

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2024ACQA/79/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused under Sections 354 IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court found that no witnesses other than the prosecutrix supported the prosecution and noted a previous dispute between the accused and the prosecutrix's father. Applying the standard of care required in appeal against acquittal, the Court held the trial court's view was possible

What the court decided

AI extract

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Pradeep Kumar Tiwari — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 79 of 2014

¶5

State of Chhattisgarh through SHO, PS Khadgawan, Distt. Koriya C.G.

¶6

--- Appellant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pradeep Kumar Tiwari S/o Ram Kripal Tiwari Aged About 35 Years R/o Khadgawan Ps Khadgawan, Distt. Koriya C.G.

¶9

--- Respondent.

¶10

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶11

For Appellant/State : Mr. B. P. Banjare, Dy. GA. For Respondent : None.

¶12

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Judgment On Board

¶13

09.01.2024

¶14

The present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State against the judgment dated 27.04.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Koria, Baikunthpur in Special Sessions Case No.22/2008, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 354 read with Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity “ SC/ST Act ”).

¶15

Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 30.09.2008, the prosecutrix A (PW1) lodged a report to the effect that on 27.09.2008, she had gone to the school. After the classes was over, the respondent/accused, who is a teacher in her school asked her to come along with him. Thereafter, he took her to the office of school and with an intention to outrage her modesty, he started undressing her. When she objected to the aforesaid act and raised hue and cry, the accused gagged her mouth. At the same

¶16

¶17

time, another teacher of school and one girl came over there, on which, the accused left her. When she reached the house, her elder father was not present, therefore, the report could not be lodged immediately. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-1 on 30.09.2008, investigation commenced and the spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Since the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, her caste certificate was collected vide Article A-1. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he took the plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

¶18

In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, whereas, the respondent/accused examined 3 witnesses in his defence.

¶19

Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondent from all the charges levelled against him by the judgment impugned. Against the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal.

¶20

Learned State counsel submits that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and looking to the manner in which the crime has been committed, the respondent/accused deserves to be convicted. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set-aside.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶22

The complainant/prosecutrix A (PW-1) in her evidence categorically deposed that during the period of incident, she was studying in Class Sixth

¶23

¶24

and the accused was posted as teacher in her school. On the date of the incident, she was present in the school for exam and while she was returning to her house after exam, the accused called her, to which, she did not respond. Thereafter, another girl Nxxxj (DW-2) told her that the teacher (accused) is calling her, then, again she did not respond. However, when the accused again called her loudly, she went near him. Thereafter, the accused asked her to sit on the chair and when she denied, he forced her to sit and started closing the window of the room. Thereafter, he started kissing her lips and opened her shirt. She further deposed that when people of the village had saw such incident, they started raising shouts, then she left the place. Thereafter, one Sxxxy (DW-3) dropped her to her home. She also stated that she has lodged the FIR against the accused. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that there was a previous dispute between the accused and her elder father ‘Rxxxr’. She admitted that her elder father used to purchase grocery from the shop of the accused and a dispute occurred between them with regard to payment of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, they stopped talking to each other. Moreover, learned Special Judge in the judgment impugned observed that except the complainant, no other witness has supported the case of the prosecution and there was a previous dispute between the elder father and the accused. Even NxxxJ (DW-2), who was present there at the time of incident, stated that nothing happened between the prosecutrix and the accused though prosecutrix deposed that ‘SxxxY’ had dropped her to the house. Further, SxxxY (DW-3) in his evidence deposed that on 27.09.2008, in the noon, he was present in the school along with one Sxxxosh, Pxxxp and Axxr and some other persons. At that time, the prosecutrix A and two others Mxxu and Nxxxj were also playing in the ground. He deposed that at about 2:00 pm, one lady Sxxxta came there and started abusing the accused. He further deposed that on the date of incident, nothing

¶25

¶26

happened with the prosecutrix. The said lady Sxxxta has also not been examined. Another school teacher Bxxxn (DW-1) in his evidence deposed that on such date, no dispute occurred between the prosecutrix and the accused and one lady Sxxxta came to the school and abused the respondent/accused. Likewise, prosecution witness No.2 Ixxxr, in his evidence, deposed that on such date, one lady from Anganbadi namely Sxxxta came there and asked him to come along with one Kxxxa (PW-3) and thereafter, they had gone to the school where accused was working and Sxxxta started abusing the accused. Except this, both the witnesses stated that on the date of incident nothing had happened with the complainant.

¶27

Analysis of overall evidence would show that except the complainant, no other witness has supported the case of the prosecution and further there was a dispute between the elder father of the prosecutrix and the accused. Furthermore, one incident occurred between the accused and another lady on the same day in the school. In such backdrop, learned trial Court has given the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him.

¶28

Further, in respect of scope of appeal against acquittal following was materially observed in the matter of Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 vide para 25 which reads thus:

¶29

“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, 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

¶30

¶31

presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶32

10.In light of the aforesaid settled principle and considering the overall evidence, this Court is of the view that the finding arrived at by the learned Special Judge is a possible one.

¶33

For the forgoing, the Acquittal Appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶36

Judge

¶37

Ajay

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohanlal Vs Pyarelal and Ors.

State of C.G. Vs Babadeen Malik

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Ganpat Sonkar

Omprakash Jain Vs Smt.jamuna Devi Thakur

Smt. Dhaneshwari Vs Ramcharan Sahu