Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Vinod Manikpuri on 28 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 371 of 2022
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Sanawal,
District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh,
---- Petitioner
Versus
• Vinod Manikpuri S/o Rampreet Aged About 18 Years R/o Village
Mahuadamar, Sanawal, Police Station- Sanawal, District-
Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Petitioner/State : Shri D.C.Verma, GA
For Respondent : None present.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K.Agrawal &
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board By Smt. Rajani Dubey, J.
28/04/2022
1. Heard on I.A. No.01, application for condonation of delay in filing
the petition.
2. Taking into consideration the cause shown in the application, we
are inclined to condone the delay in filing the petition. Delay is
condoned accordingly.
3. Also heard on application for grant of leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that though the
prosecutrix has stated against the respondent/accused and has
remained firm in her cross-examination but the trial court has acquitted
the respondent/accused. He submits that it is a well settled principle of
law that in rape cases, statement of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient
for conviction but the learned trial court did not appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence therefore the leave as prayed for registration of
appeal may be granted.
5. Heard counsel for the petitioner/appellant and perused the
material available on record.
6. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix lodged a report
against the respondent/accused alleging that on 05.01.2018, at about
4.00 p.m. the respondent has committed rape on her against her will in
the jungle of Jherik Machaan, village Sanawal. On the basis of the said
report, offence was registered against the respondent/accused under
Sections 376 and 506 (B) IPC.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as
many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused was also
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges
levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in
the case.
8. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial
court found that the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable and has
acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 376
and 506 -B IPC.
9. In her statement, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted that she
was willing to marry the respondent/.accused but the parents and
villagers of their caste and community were against the marriage as
they belong to different caste. She has also admitted that she went
along with the respondent by walk. Learned trial court after
appreciating the statement of the prosecutrix has found that she is a
consenting party and was major and relying mainly on the prosecutrix's
statement, learned trial court acquitted the respondent/accused.
10. The view taken by the learned trial court on the basis of material
available on record, is a plausible view and we do not find any material
evidence on record, was ignored from consideration or that any finding
contrary to the evidence has been recorded by the trial court, so as to
warrant interference in the judgment of acquittal. Therefore, we do not find
the case if any, for grant of leave and registration of appeal. The same is
accordingly rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K.Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
suguna
