Raththu Das @ Raigarhiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CRA No. 331/2016

¶3

Digitally signed bySHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date:2025.11.04 17:55:08 +0530

¶4

2025:CGHC:52219

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 331 of 2016

¶8

Raththu Das @ Raigarhiya S/o Sonar Das Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Ulkiya, Barbahlapara, Police Station Sitapur, Civil And Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

(Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

27/10/2025

¶17

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2015 passed in C. Reg. (Cr. Case) No. 32/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. Surguja, (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶18

2

¶19

CRA No. 331/2016

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 363 of the IPC	Imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo S.I. for 01 month.
U/s 354 A(i)(ii) of the IPC	Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo S.I. for 01 month.
U/s 354 of the IPC	Imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo S.I. for 01 month.
U/s 8 of the POCSO Act	Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo S.I. for 01 month.
All the sentences we	re directed to run concurrently.

¶21

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the date of the incident,

¶22

at about 6:00 p.m., the prosecutrix (PW-2) was alone in her house. At that time, the accused came there and forcibly dragged the prosecutrix from outside the house to some distance, held her hands and arms, and tried to compel her to commit an indecent act. It is further alleged that the accused had been observing the prosecutrix for several days when she was alone and used to pressurize her to establish illicit relations with him. While being dragged, the prosecutrix, out of fear for her honour, did not raise any alarm and subsequently managed to free herself and run away. The accused had also told her that he would take her to Delhi for a visit. Upon returning home, the

¶23

3

¶24

CRA No. 331/2016

¶25

prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her parents. On the next day, i.e., on 10.04.2015, her parents convened a meeting in the village, during which the accused absconded from the spot. Thereafter, on 12.04.2015, the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint (Ex. P/01) at Police Station Sitapur. On the basis of the said complaint, Inspector R.C. Nishad (PW-6) registered the First Information Report (Ex. P/02).

¶26

During investigation, Investigating Officer N.K. Dubey (PW-9) visited the spot on 12.04.2015 and prepared a spot map (Ex. P/03) as per the description given by the prosecutrix. He recorded the statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses Ram Sai and Ranjit Gupta under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also seized a photocopy of the mark-sheet of the prosecutrix of Class V in the presence of witnesses under seizure memo (Ex. P/04). The accused was arrested in the presence of witnesses under arrest memo (Ex. P/11), and intimation of arrest was given to his wife, Basanti Bai (Ex. P/11-A).

¶27

The prosecutrix was sent for recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. through letter (Ex. P/12) to the learned JMFC, Ambikapur. On 28.04.2015, a letter (Ex. P/13) was sent to the Headmaster, Primary School, Ulkiya, seeking details regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix. The Headmaster, Gulabi Kujur, produced the admission register, which was seized under seizure memo (Ex. P/06) in the presence of

¶28

4

¶29

CRA No. 331/2016

¶30

witnesses. On 16.04.2015, the statements of witnesses Kamal Das and Dhyan Singh were also recorded.

¶31

After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the District and Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, from where the case was transferred to this Court for trial.

¶32

Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 363, 354, 354(1)(i)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Act”). The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶33

After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence.

¶34

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 11.12.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶35

Mr. Govind Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is bad both in law and on facts

¶36

5

¶37

CRA No. 331/2016

¶38

and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and has convicted the appellant on erroneous grounds. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, as most of the prosecution witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW-2), have not supported the case and were declared hostile. Despite this, the learned trial Court erroneously relied upon their testimony. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of about five days in lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. The seizure witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. In view of these material contradictions, omissions, and lack of reliable evidence, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is unsustainable in law and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.

¶39

On the other hand, Ms Isha Jajodia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State submits that the the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is just and proper, based on a correct appreciation of evidence. It is argued that the prosecutrix’s testimony, , sufficiently establishes the accused’s involvement, and the delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained. Minor inconsistencies do not affect the core of the prosecution case, which remains

¶40

6

¶41

CRA No. 331/2016

¶42

consistent and credible. Hence, no ground exists to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

¶43

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶44

PW-1 Victim stated that she was alone at her house when the accused came there and told her that he would take her to Delhi and also offered her money as an inducement. She refused to go with him. Upon her refusal, the accused started chasing her. She ran away from her house, and when her father met her on the way and asked the reason for her running, she told him that the accused was asking her to go to Delhi and was showing her money. Thereafter, the accused slapped her father. Following that, her father went to the police station to lodge a report. She further deposed that a village meeting was called thereafter, in which the accused had also come, but he ran away from the meeting. Subsequently, she along with 5–6 other persons went to the police station, where she lodged a written report, which was marked as Ex. P/1. On the basis of that written report, the police registered the First Information Report (FIR) marked as Ex. P/2.

¶45

In her cross-examination, she stated that the accused had

¶46

7

¶47

CRA No. 331/2016

¶48

forcibly dragged her out of her house, taken her some distance away, held her hands, and tried to pressurize her for committing a wrongful act. She further admitted that two or three days prior to the lodging of the report in the present case, there had been a quarrel between the accused and her father. She stated that after the said quarrel, the accused had lodged a report against her father at Police Station Sitapur, and pursuant to that report, the police had taken her father into custody. Later, they obtained his release on bail from the Court at Sitapur.

¶49

Father of the vicitm (PW-7), stated that about six to seven months prior to the date of his deposition, the accused, who was under the influence of liquor, was sitting near a neighbour’s house in the same lane as his residence. The accused was abusing him, and when he questioned the accused as to why he was abusing him, the accused began to scuffle with him. He further stated that he had no knowledge of what the accused had done to his daughter. According to him, his wife, would be able to tell about that aspect. He also stated that his daughter had not told him anything about the incident, nor had his wife informed him about it. He further stated that apart from this, he knew nothing more about the incident. He admitted that the police had recorded his statement during investigation. He further admitted that his daughter had come to him crying at about 7:00 p.m. one evening, about six to seven months earlier,

¶50

8

¶51

CRA No. 331/2016

¶52

when asked whether his daughter had told him that while they were away for work, the accused had caught her hand and arm with an intent to outrage her modesty, he replied that his daughter might have told this to her mother. He denied the suggestion that his daughter had told him that the accused had dragged her towards the house of one Devkaran Sai, touched her body, caught her hands, and showed her money. He voluntarily stated that his daughter had not told him these things; she might have told them to her mother. He also denied the suggestion that his daughter had told him that the accused had offered to take her to Delhi and, on finding her alone, had tried to dishonour her. The witness voluntarily stated that such things might have been told to her mother.

¶53

PW-7 denied that he had gone to the accused to question him in that regard. However, he admitted that a village meeting (panchayat) had been convened in this connection, in which the accused was also present. When asked whether his daughter had also attended the said panchayat, he first stated that she had, but then said he was not sure whether she was present or not. He admitted that when his daughter came to the panchayat, the accused had fled from there. When asked whether his daughter narrated the entire incident before the panchayat, he stated that she had not told him anything about it. The witness admitted that one evening, while he was returning home after

¶54

9

¶55

CRA No. 331/2016

¶56

plucking jackfruits, he had an altercation with the accused, Rathudas. He admitted that the accused had lodged a report against him at Police Station Sitapur on 07.04.2015 regarding that quarrel. He also admitted that on the basis of the accused’s report, a proceeding under Sections 107, 116, and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against him, and he was produced before the Executive Magistrate, Sitapur, where he was released on bail. He admitted that he had felt anger because he had been detained on account of the accused’s report. He further admitted that three to four days after that incident, his daughter had lodged a report against the accused at the police station. He admitted that the panchayat he had mentioned earlier had been convened not in relation to the alleged incident with his daughter but in connection with the quarrel between him and the accused.

¶57

¶58

On minute scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is apparent that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions between the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her father (PW-7). The prosecutrix in her examination-inchief stated that the accused offered her money and asked her to accompany him to Delhi and that upon refusal, he chased her and even slapped her father. However, in cross-examination, she made material improvements by alleging that the accused had dragged her and held her hands with an intent to commit a

¶59

10

¶60

CRA No. 331/2016

¶61

wrongful act. Her father (PW-7), on the other hand, categorically stated that he had no knowledge of any such act by the accused against his daughter, and that his daughter had not informed him of any incident. He further admitted that there had been a quarrel between him and the accused two to three days prior to the lodging of the FIR, that the accused had lodged a police report against him, and that he was arrested and released on bail in that connection.

¶62

The admitted previous enmity between the accused and the father of the prosecutrix, coupled with the unexplained delay of about five days in lodging the FIR, casts serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution version. The evidence of the material witnesses is not only inconsistent but also indicative of improvements and exaggerations made during the course of the trial. Their testimony lacks corroboration on essential particulars and fails to inspire confidence.

¶63

In view of the above, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Sections 354, 354A(i) (ii), and 363 IPC, as well as Section 8 of the POCSO Act, beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the evidence, existence of previous animosity, and delay in reporting the matter clearly point towards a case of false implication, and as such, no offence is made out against the accused.

¶64

11

¶65

CRA No. 331/2016

¶66

The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed .

¶67

The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶70

Shoaib

Raththu Das @ Raigarhiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raththu Das @ Raigarhiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Abhilekha Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Domar Singh Verma Vs Rajaram Baghel

Ku. Smriti Verma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

The South Eastern Coalfield Limited Vs Smt. Nanki Bai

Keval Singh Rathiya @ Keval Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc Vs Gaurav Bole