State Of Chhattisgarh vs Chitren @ Chitendra Verma
2022 Latest Caselaw 787 Chatt

                                                              NAFR
       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       CRMP No. 273 of 2022
    State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Bemetara,
     District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                     ---- Petitioner
                                 Versus
    Chitren @ Chitendra Verma S/o Birbal Verma, Aged About 27
     Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Karchuva, Post
     Karesara, Out Post Khandsara, Police Station And District-
     Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
                                                   ---- Respondent

For Petitioner/State : Shri Raghvendra Verma, G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Order On Board 15.02.2022

1. Heard on application for grant of leave to appeal.

2. Application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by the

State in the matter of acquittal of respondent vide judgment

dated 28.10.2021 passed in Special Session Case No.

05/2021 by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes &

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bemetara,

District Bemetara (C.G.)

3. Learned State counsel would submit that learned trial Court

has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offences

charged. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has clearly stated in her

statement that the accused made physical relations many

times by giving her threat to kill her, therefore, it is prayed

that impugned judgment of acquittal be set-aside and the

respondent be convicted appropriately.

4. Though, learned State counsel would submit that respondent

has made physical relations with the victim forcefully,

medical report of the prosecutrix examined by Dr. Pragya

(PW-3) did not support the prosecution case.

5. As per the records, prosecutrix is 28 years old married lady. In

her statement she stated that on 14.12.2018 respondent had

committed forceful intercourse with her. Again after two and

a half year i.e. on 18.05.2021 respondent committed sexual

intercourse with her and she admitted this fact that during

that period she did not make any complaint to her husband

or police station which itself raise question on consent of the

prosecutrix. After considering all the facts and circumstances

of the case, learned trial Court did not found the respondent

guilty and acquitted him and, this Court does not find any

patent illegality or perversity in the order of the Court below

in acquitting the respondent. Therefore, there is no ground to

interfere with the impugned judgment of the Court below.

6. Taking into consideration the limited scope of interference

against the judgment of acquittal, I am not inclined to grant

to leave to appeal.

7. Accordingly, CRMP is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

V/-