Partly allowed

Anis Ekka v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Jun 2024CRA/1271/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of clubbed criminal appeals arising from a conviction under the POCSO Act, IPC, and the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The Court affirmed convictions for kidnapping and abduction but acquitted the appellant of SC/ST Act charges due to lack of evidence regarding caste-based motive, acquitted another appellant of rape charges due to lack of specific allegations, and acquit

What did the court decide?

Appeals partly allowed; Conviction for IPC 363/34 and 366/34 affirmed for all appellants. Conviction for POCSO/IPC 376 allowed against one appellant but set aside against another. Conviction under SC/

Anis Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1474 OF 2018

¶6

Sunil Lohar, S/o Netlal Lohar, aged about 20 years, R/o Village 07 Number Old Channa Dafai, Koriya Colliery, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, through: Station House Officer, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

With

¶12

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1271 OF 2018

¶13

1. Anis Ekka, S/o Dhanushdhari Ekka, aged about 20 years, R/o Village Lai, Nagpur, Police Station Pondi, District Koria (C.G.)

¶14

2. Smt. Subhasho Bai, W/o Manbahal Urao, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Bamba Fakirpara, Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶15

... Appellant(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

State of Chhattisgarh, through: Police of Police Station Chirmiri, District Koria (C.G.)

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

(Arising out of Judgment & Order dated 17.5.2017 passed by Special Judge under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Baikunthpur, District Koriya in Special Criminal Case No.36/2016)

¶20

For Appellant	:- Ms. Sofia Khan,
[in Cr.A. No.1474/2018]	Advocate.
For Appellants	:- Mr. Govind Dewangan,
[in Cr.A. No.1271/2018]	Advocate.
For Respondent/State	:- Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General.

¶21

-2-

¶22

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶23

Division Bench

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

¶25

Judgment on Board [26.06.2024]

¶26

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶27

(1) Since both the present criminal appeals have arisen out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶28

(2) These two criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, CrPC) have been preferred by three appellants herein, i.e, A-1 Sunil Lohar, who has filed Cr.A. No.1474/2018 separately, and A-2 Anis Ekka and A-3 Smt. Subhasho Bai, who both have jointly filed Cr.A. No.1271/2018, assailing the judgment dated 17.5.2017 passed by learned Special Judge under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Baikunthpur, District Koriya in Special Criminal Case No.36 of 2016, whereby the three appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

¶29

-3-

¶30

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶31

A-1 Su	nil	Lohar
Conviction		Sentence
1.Under Section 363/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	1. 2. 3.	Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years. Fine of Rs.500/-. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months, in default ofpayment of fine.
2.Under Section 366/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	1. 2. 3.	Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. Fine of Rs.500/-. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months, in default ofpayment of fine.
3.Under Section 376(2) (i)(n) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5(l)/ 6 & 11(vi)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012.	1. 2. 3.	Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. Fine of Rs.500/-. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months, in default of payment of fine.
4.Under Section 3(1)(b) (i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended on 26.1.2016) and as per unamended Section 3(2)(v) ofsame Act.	1. 2. 3.	Imprisonment for Life. Fine of Rs.500/-. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months, in default of payment of fine.

¶32

A-2 A	nis	Ekka
Conviction		Sentence
1.Under Section 363/34	1.	Rigorous Imprisonment
of Indian Penal Code,		for 7 years.
1860.	2.	Fine of Rs.500/-.
	3.	Rigorous Imprisonment
		for 3 months,in default

¶33

-4-

¶34

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶35

	ofpayment of fine.
2.Under Section 366/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months, in default ofpayment of fine.
3.Under Section 376(2) (i)(n) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5(l)/ 6 & 11(vi)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012.	1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. 2. Fine of Rs.500/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months, in default of payment of fine.

¶36

A-3 Sub	hasho Bai
Conviction	Sentence
1.Under Section 368 of	1. Rigorous Imprisonment
Indian Penal Code, 1860	for 10 years.
and Sections 19/21 of	2. Fine of Rs.500/-.
Protection of Children	3. Rigorous Imprisonment
from Sexual Offences	for 3 months, in default
Act, 2012.	ofpayment of fine.

¶37

(3) Factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that on 8.7.2016, A-1 Sunil Lohar, A-2 Anis Ekka including other two accused persons i.e., Sunil Ekka (who stands acquitted by the impugned judgment) and Pooja (who died during pendency of the trial), in furtherance of their common intention, abducted the minor prosecutrix (PW-1) from lawful guardianship of her father (who was the complainant in the instant case and had died after the incident) and took her to

¶38

-5-

¶39

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶40

the house of A-3 Subhasho Bai where A-1 Sunil

¶41

Lohar, A-2 Anis Ekka and the said acquitted accused A-4 Sunil Ekka wrongfully confined her and forced and seduced her into illicit intercourse against her will thereby also committed repeated sexual intercourse with her and in that course also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and further charge against A-1 Sunil Lohar is that he, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW-1) knowing fully well that she is a member of a Scheduled Tribe thereby they committed the aforesaid offences.

¶42

(4) FIR regarding the abduction of the prosecutrix (PW-1) by unknown person on 8.7.2016 was lodged by her father vide Exhibit P-13. Subsequently, on the information of A-3 Subhasho Bai, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was recovered from her (A-3) house on 14.7.2016 vide seizure memo (Exhibit P-4). Vide Exhibit P-12, MLC of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Shalini Sharma (PW-8) opining possible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW-1) and two external injuries were also found on her body. As per

¶43

-6-

¶44

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶45

Dakhil-Kharij register (Exhibit P-8C), date of birth of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was proved to be 16.6.2001. In Forensic Science Laboratory’s report (Exhibit P-31), human sperms were found on the seized slides (A1 & A2) and underwear (b) of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and also on the underwear (C) of A-1 Sunil Lohar.

¶46

(5) After completion of the entire formalities and investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Trial Court where charges were framed against them under the aforesaid offences to which they denied and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-13 and exhibited 32 documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-32. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶47

(6) After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came on record, by impugned judgment dated 17.5.2017,

¶48

-7-

¶49

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶50

while acquitting A-4 Sunil Ekka of the charges presented, convicted A-1 Sunil Lohar and A-2 Anis Ekka for the offence punishable under Sections 363/34, 366/34 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) as well as under Sections 5( l )/6 & 11(vi)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, POCSO Act) and also convicted A-1 Sunil Lohar for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(b)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended on 26.1.2016) (in short, SC/ST Act) and as per unamended Section 3(2)(v) of the same Act and further A-3 Subhasho Bai also was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 368 of IPC as well as under Section 19/21 of POCSO Act and sentenced them in the manner as mentioned at the tables shown above in paragraph-2 of this judgment, against which the present two criminal appeals have been filed separately, one by A-1 Sunil Lohar and the other by A-2 Anis Ekka and A-3 Subhasho Bai.

¶51

(7) Ms. Sofia Khan, learned counsel appearing for A-1 Sunil Lohar, would submit that the investigation in the instant case has not been conducted by a

¶52

-8-

¶53

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶54

competent officer and the conviction of A-1 Sunil Lohar for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(b) (i)(ii) (as amended on 26.1.2016) and as per unamended Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is not made out at all and the other offences are also not duly established against him. She would therefore pray for A-1 Sunil Lohar to be acquitted of all the offences and his appeal to be allowed.

¶55

(8) Similarly, Mr. Govind Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for A-2 Anis Ekka and A-3 Subhasho Bai, would submit that the prosecutrix (PW-1) has not made any allegation of sexual assault against A-2 Anis Ekka and the prosecutrix was recovered on the information given by A-3 Subhasho Bai herself vide Exhibit P-4 which has been corroborated by PW-13 Anand Kumar Tirkey. Both A-1 Anis Ekka as well as A-3 Subhasho Bai are as such entitled to acquittal and their appeal deserves to be allowed accordingly.

¶56

(9) Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, would however support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction of all

¶57

-9-

¶58

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶59

the three appellants herein is well merited and absolutely justified on the basis of evidence available on record and thus prayed for both the appeals to be dismissed.

¶60

(10) We have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also perused the records carefully and thoroughly.

¶61

(11) The Trial Court in paragraph 34 has clearly recorded the finding that A-1 Sunil Lohar committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW-1) who was a minor girl on the date of offence and further held that A-1 Sunil Lohar and A-2 Anis Ekka had wrongfully confined the prosecutrix (PW-1) to the house of A-3 Subhasho Bai and it was also the finding that A-1 Sunil Lohar, being not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, committed the said offence knowing fully well that the prosecutrix (PW-1) is a member of a Scheduled Tribe and he is not, thereby the three appellants herein have been convicted for the offences as aforesaid.

¶62

(12) Considering the nature of evidence which have come on record against A-1 Sunil Lohar and A-2 Anis Ekka and also considering the fact that both of them have

¶63

-10-

¶64

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶65

been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363/34, 366/34 and 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and under Sections 5( l )/6 & 11(vi)/12 of POCSO Act and apart from that, A-1 Sunil Lohar has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(b)(i)(ii) (as amended on 26.1.2016) and as per unamended Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, it would be convenient for us to decide on their conviction first.

¶66

(13) A careful perusal of the testimony of prosecutrix (PW1) would show that on the date of offence she was kidnapped by A-1 Sunil Lohar, A-2 Anis Ekka and other co-accused Pooja (who died during pendency of the trial) and then she was taken and wrongfully confined to the house of A-3 Subhasho Bai where during the period, only A-1 Sunil Lohar committed sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has maintained her version and clearly implicated A-1 Sunil Lohar only, stating that it is he who had committed the sexual intercourse with her during the period whereas there is no allegation of commission of rape on the prosecutrix (PW-1) by A-2 Anis Ekka.

¶67

-11-

¶68

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶69

(14) Furthermore, the prosecution has also been able to establish by Dakhil-Kharij register (Exhibit P-8C), proved by PW-4 Awadhesh Kumar, Assistant Teacher of the concerned school, the date of birth of the prosecutrix (PW-1) which is recorded as 16.6.2001, and as such she was aged about 15 years on the date of offence i.e. 8.7.2016. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that on the date of offence, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was a minor girl and the Trial Court is also absolutely justified in holding that it is only A-1 Sunil Lohar who had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW-1).

¶70

(15) In that view of the matter, so far as the conviction of A-1 Sunil Lohar and A-2 Anis Ekka for the offence punishable under Sections 363/34 and 366/34 of IPC is concerned, they have been rightly convicted by the Trial Court for the said offence. However, as regards the conviction under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sections 5( l )/6 & 11(vi)/12 of POCSO Act, it is only made out against A-1 Sunil Lohar and not against A-2 Anis Ekka. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction of A-1 Sunil Lohar and A-2 Anis Ekka for the offence punishable under Sections 363/34 and 366/34 of

¶71

-12-

¶72

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶73

IPC. However, while affirming the conviction of only A-1 Sunil Lohar for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sections 5( l )/6 & 11(vi)/12 of POCSO Act, we set-aside the conviction of A-2 Anis Ekka for these offences extending him the benefit of doubt.

¶74

(16) Now, coming to the issue as to whether the conviction of A-1 Sunil Lohar for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(b)(i)(ii) (as amended on 26.1.2016) and as per unamended Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is justified or not, it is not in dispute that the date of incident in the instant case is 8.7.2016 whereas Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act suffered an amendment with effect from 26.1.2016 by Act 1 of 2016. The said Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act prior to its amendment with effect from 26.1.2016 stood as under:-

¶75

“3. Punishment for offences of atrocities-

¶76

xxx xxx xxx

¶77

(1) (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-

¶78

(i) to (iv) xxx xxx xxx

¶79

(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years

¶80

-13-

¶81

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶82

or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; ”

¶83

Prior to its amendment with effect from 26.1.2016, the unamended portion of Section 3(2)(v)

¶84

was:-

¶85

“ on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member ”

¶86

After the amendment, the substituted portion of

¶87

Section 3(2)(v) is:-

¶88

“ knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member. ”

¶89

(17) The unamended provision of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act came to be considered before the Supreme Court in the matter of Patan Jaman Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 in which their Lordships have held that it has to be established by the prosecution on the basis of the evidence adduced that accused has committed sexual intercourse on the ground that such person is a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe and held as under: -

¶90

1 AIR 2021 SC 2190

¶91

-14-

¶92

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶93

“58. ….We agree with the Sessions Judge that the prosecution's case would not fail merely because PW1 did not mention in her statement to the police that the offence was committed against her daughter because she was a Scheduled Caste woman. However, there is no separate evidence led by the prosecution to show that the accused committed the offence on the basis of the caste identity of PW2. While it would be reasonable to presume that the accused knew the caste of PW2 since village communities are tightly knit and the accused was also an acquaintance of PW2's family, the knowledge by itself cannot be said to be the basis of the commission of offence, having regard to the language of Section 3(2)(v) as it stood at the time when the offence in the present case was committed. As we have discussed above, due to the inter-sectional nature of oppression PW2 faces, it becomes difficult to establish what led to the commission of the offence – whether it was her caste, gender or disability. This highlights the limitation of a provision where causation of a wrongful act arises from a single ground or what we refer to as the single axis model.

¶94

59. It is pertinent to mention that Section 3(2)(v) was amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which came into effect on 26 January 2016. The words “on the ground of” under Section 3(2)(v) have been substituted with “knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe”. This has decreased the threshold of proving that a crime was committed on the basis of the caste identity to a threshold where mere knowledge is sufficient to sustain a conviction...

¶95

60. xxx xxx xxx

¶96

-15-

¶97

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶98

61. However, since Section 3(2)(v) was amended and Clause (c) of Section 8 was inserted by Act 1 of 2016 with effect from 26 January 2016 these amendments would not be applicable to the case at hand. The offence in the present case has taken place before the amendment, on 31 March 2011. Therefore, we hold that the evidence in the present case does not establish that the offence in the present case was committed on the ground that such person is a member of a SC or ST. The conviction under Section 3(2)(v) would consequently have to be set aside. ”

¶99

(18) However, after the amendment to the provision of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the wording of the substituted portion of Section 3(2)(v) is that “ knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member ”. The word “knowing” has been defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, Page 888, — “1. Having or showing awareness or understanding; well-informed. 2. Deliberate; conscious".

¶100

(19) In the matter of Shashikant Sharma & Ors. v. State

¶101

of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.2 , Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act came to be considered before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and wherein it has been held that in order to commit offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act as amended, 2 2023 INSC 1036

¶102

-16-

¶103

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶104

there must be allegation that the accused not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe committed an offence under the provision of IPC punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to said community.

¶105

(20) In light of the legal position noticed herein above, though in the instant case the charge has been framed against A-1 Sunil Lohar that he knowing that the prosecutrix (PW-1) is a member of a Scheduled Tribe committed the offence of rape punishable under the provision of IPC with imprisonment of 10 or more years, however, there is no evidence available on record to establish that A-1 Sunil Lohar knew that she is a member of a Scheduled Tribe. In view of the fact that the punishment for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is very stringent, mere mention by the prosecution witnesses that A-1 Sunil Lohar knew that the prosecutrix (PW-1) belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community is not sufficient to convict him for the said offence. To base conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST

¶106

-17-

¶107

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶108

Act, there must be sufficient evidence of clinching nature to hold that the accused knowing that the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, committed offence under the provision of IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 or more years. It must be well informed and unless it is duly proved, merely on the basis of a mention by the prosecution witnesses, conviction for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act cannot be said to be made out. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the conviction of A-1 Sunil Lohar for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(b)(i)(ii) (as amended on 26.1.2016) and as per unamended Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, acquitting him of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶109

(21) Now, so far as A-3 Subhasho Bai is concerned, she has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 368 of IPC and Section 19/21 of POCSO Act.

¶110

(22) Section 368 of IPC defines as under:-

¶111

“368. Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person.- Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such

¶112

-18-

¶113

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶114

person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement. ”

¶115

(23) A careful perusal of the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) would show that though A-1 Sunil Lohar and A-2 Anis Ekka and other accused person had taken the prosecutrix (PW-1) to the house of A-3 Subhasho Bai, but A-3 Subhasho Bai in no manner helped A-1 Sunil Lohar and A-2 Anis Ekka in wrongfully confining the prosecutrix (PW-1) to her house. It is A-1 Sunil Lohar and A-2 Anis Ekka who were the male members and were already having the custody of the minor victim. More importantly, A-3 Subhasho Bai herself had informed the police about the wrongful confinement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) by the accused persons to her house and it is on her information that the prosecutrix was recovered by the police on 14.7.2021 from her house vide Exhibit P-4. The said fact has also been proved by PW-13 Anand Kumar Tirkey stating that on the information of A-3 Subhasho Bai, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was recovered by the police from her house vide Exhibit P-4.

¶116

-19-

¶117

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶118

Therefore, it cannot be said that A-3 Subhasho Bai had her hands in wrongfully confining the prosecutrix (PW-1) to her house so as to attract Section 368 of IPC to base her conviction which, in the given facts and circumstances, does not deserve to be maintained but the same is liable to be and is hereby set-aside acquitting A-3 Subhasho Bai of the said offence.

¶119

(24) Similarly, as regards the conviction of A-3 Subhasho Bai for the offence punishable under Section 19/21 of POCSO Act, the said offence is also not made out against her as, in view of the statement of PW-13 Anand Kumar Tirkey, it is A-3 Subhasho Bai on whose information the prosecutrix (PW-1) was recovered by the police from her house vide Exhibit P- 4. Though the report was not lodged pursuant to her information, but it is A-3 Subhasho at whose instance the prosecutrix was recovered. Hence, the conviction of A-3 Subhasho Bai for the offence punishable under Section 19/21 of POCSO Act also is not made out and it also stands set-aside, acquitting her of the same.

¶120

(25) In view of the discussion made herein above, we conclude herein under:

¶121

-20-

¶122

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶123

(1) The conviction of A-1 Sunil Lohar and A-2 Anis Ekka for the offence punishable under Sections 363/34 and 366/34 of IPC is affirmed.

¶124

(2) The conviction of A-1 Sunil Lohar for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sections 5( l )/6 & 11(vi)/12 of POCSO Act is affirmed. However, the conviction of A-2 Anis Ekka for the said offences Section 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sections 5( l )/6 & 11(vi)/12 of POCSO Act is hereby set-aside and he is acquitted of the said charges extending him the benefit of doubt.

¶125

(3) The conviction of A-1 Sunil Lohar for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(b)(i)(ii) (as amended on 26.1.2016) and as per unamended Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is also hereby setaside and he is acquitted of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶126

(4) The conviction of A-3 Subhasho Bai for the offence punishable under Section 368 of IPC and Section 19/21 of POCSO Act is set-aside and she is acquitted of both the charges. She is stated to be on bail. She need not surrender and stands set at liberty in respect of the said offences.

¶127

-21-

¶128

(Cr. A. Nos. 1474 & 1271 of 2018)

¶129

However, her bail-bonds shall remain in

¶130

operation for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of CrPC.

¶131

(26) Both these criminal appeals stand accordingly partly

¶132

allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶133

(27) Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail be also served with a copy of this judgment for information and compliance, if any.

¶134

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶135

sharad

Anis Ekka v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anis Ekka 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Chaitram Ratre Vs Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

Shabnam Karim Vs Ramkumar Alias Mahendra Kumar Mishra

Suraj Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Lohar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Puneetram Nishad Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

K. Santosh Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh