State Of Chhattisgarh vs Hulas Nirmalkar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1267 Chatt

                                                                     NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            CRMP No. 701 of 2021
      State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police
       Station Dharsiwa District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
       Chhattisgarh.                                     --- Petitioner.
                                  Versus
      Hulas Nirmalkar, S/o Shri Pardeshi Nirmalkar Aged About 21
       Years R/o. Durga Chowk, Bhatapara Siltara, Police Station
       Dharsiwa District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
       Chhattisgarh.                               --- Respondent.


For the State        :-      Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, PL.


       Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
          Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor,

     Order on Board by Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

20.07.2021 Heard on application for condonation of delay as also prayer for

grant of leave to appeal.

2. The application for condonation of delay is disposed off as

unnecessary in view of office report that the appeal is within limitation.

3. Learned State counsel would submit that doubt, if any, in the

statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and witness (PW-2) stands

resolved in view of the medical report and the FSL report which proves

presence of seminal stain on the clothes of the accused as well as

prosecutrix. He would submit that the statement of PW-3 - the father of

the prosecutrix explains that some kind of compromise had taken place

and that is the reason why the prosecutrix is not firm but the other

evidence collected by the prosecution proves the case of the

prosecution beyond doubt.

4. After going through the statement of PW-1 and PW-2, we find

that the statement of the prosecution witnesses including prosecutrix is

highly shaky and the prosecutrix has not remain firm on her statement.

She has gone to the extent of stating that she does not even know the

accused and in the cross examination she has clearly stated that

nothing was done to her by the accused. Therefore, irrespective of age

of the prosecutrix, as the prosecutrix herself has not remain firm and

has ended up by stating that she does not even know the accused and

he has not done anything, the finding of the learned trial Court that the

prosecution case is doubtful and the accused is entitled to benefit of

doubt, does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity. Merely

because two views are possible, no interference is called for against

judgment of acquittal, in view of settled legal position and the limited

scope of interference.

Therefore, we do not find any merits and the application is

dismissed.

Accordingly, CRMP is dismissed.

                  Sd/-                                            Sd/-
       (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                       (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                 Judge                                           Judge
Ajay