State of Chhattisgarh Vs Shyamu @ Shyamsundar

This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Fast Track Court of Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Sessions Case No.25/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted accused/respondent No.1- Shyamu @ Shyamsundar of the charge under Sections 323, 506 Part-II, 376(1) and 376(D) of IPC and accused/respondent No.2- Birendra Kumar of the charge under Section 376(D) of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.10.2014, victim, aged about 25 years, had gone to the village pond to relieve herself. At that time, accused/respondent No.1- Shyamu, came there, caught hold of her hands,

¶19

2

¶20

assaulted her, threatened her to life, pushed her to the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. During the said incident, accused/respondent No.2- Birendra, stood nearby and prevented passersby from intervening. Upon the arrival of the victim’s husband (PW-2) at the spot, the accused persons/respondents left the victim and fled from the spot. Thereafter, on the next day, i.e., 27.10.2014, victim went to the Police Station and lodged an FIR (Ex.P-14) against the accused persons/respondents.

¶21

During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-16A. After obtaining the consent letter vide Ex.P-17, victim was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-8 Dr. S.T. examined her and opined that the victim was habitual to sexual intercourse; however, no definite opinion was given with regard to recent forcible sexual intercourse and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-20. The accused persons/respondents were taken into custody vide Exs.P-8 and P-9, respectively.

¶22

Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. Accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

¶23

The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents of charges leveled against them.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the aforesaid charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-7 victim, which clearly establishes that the accused persons/respondents are the perpetrators of the crime in question. Despite the availability of sufficient and

¶25

3

¶26

cogent evidence on record, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondents. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is no cogent or clinching evidence on record to show that the respondents are the perpetrators of the crime in question. Thus, the learned trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence on record, has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Appellant/State deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

¶30

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

¶31

The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents are the

¶32

authors of the crime in question.

¶33

PW-7 victim has stated in her deposition that on the date of the incident, when she had gone to the pond to relieve herself, at that time, respondent No.1, Shyamu came there, caught hold of her hands with a handkerchief and

¶34

4

¶35

committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she raised alarm, respondent No.1 threatened her to life. She has further stated that during the incident, respondent No.2- Birendra was standing on the road side along with his motorcycle and upon the arrival of her husband (PW-2) at the spot, accused persons left her and fled from the spot. However, on the contrary, in cross-examination, she admitted that accused did not tie her hands or feet at the time of the incident. She further admitted that for about one and a half hours, both her hands and legs were free and that she did not offer any resistance during the alleged incident. She also admitted that at the time of the incident, she was wearing bangles and that ordinarily, if bangles break, they cause scratches on the wrists; however, there was no injury on either of her wrists. She further admitted that the place of occurrence was an open place. Furthermore, PW-2 husband of the victim also admitted that at the time of the incident, hands of his wife/victim were not tied and that she did not make any attempt to defend herself. He also admitted that he did not hear any cries for help raised by the victim.

¶36

Apart from above, PW-1 Ramesh Kumar admitted that in a village meeting, victim had stated that her husband (PW-2) had assaulted her and pressurized her to lodge a report against the accused persons. He further admitted that for about 3–4 years prior to the incident, a village meeting had been convened in connection with illicit relationship between victim and accused- Birendra and due to this reason, there were no talking terms between the husband of the victim/PW-2 and the accused persons.

¶37

Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it is quite vivid that victim (PW-7), who was admittedly a major lady, was a consenting party to the alleged acts. The evidence on record reveals that no resistance was offered by the victim at the time of the incident. That apart, PW-8 Dr. S.T., who medically examined the victim did not notice any injury on her person.

¶38

5

¶39

Furthermore, the evidence on record also shows that the place of occurrence was an open place, which was frequented by passersby, and had such an incident actually occurred at the said place, it would have come to the notice of others, who would have intervened and rescued the victim.

¶40

The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and it has also miserably failed to bring on record any clinching and reliable evidence to show the complicity of the respondents in the crime in question and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges leveled against them on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶41

After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused / respondents of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶42

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed.

¶43

Sd/Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶44

Akhilesh

State of Chhattisgarh v. Shyamu @ Shyamsundar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Shyamu @ Shyamsundar

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

Bhupendra Singh Sandhu Vs Anil Soni

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Chelani Vs Amit Josh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gaurava @ Golu Agrawal

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohan Lal Nishad

Xyz Vs Sagar Gupta