Chattisgarh High Court
The State Of Chhattisgarh vs Harishankar Sahu on 3 January, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1300 of 2021
• The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Navagarh, District
Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
• Harishankar Sahu, S/o Late Tirith Ram Sahu, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Nandal, Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Petitioner/State : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Addl. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order On Board
Per R.C.S. Samant, J.
03/01/2022
1. Heard on application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner/State, that the judgment
of acquittal dated 8.9.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No.32/2020 by the
learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District-Bemetara, is totally
erroneous and against the evidence present in the trial against the
respondent. It is further submitted that deceased was the daughter of
the respondent, who had some affair with another boy, because of
which the respondent had beaten her to death. There is admission
regarding this incident by Rubi Sahu (PW-3) in cross-examination by
the prosecutor that her husband had informed her that it was the
respondent who had beaten the deceased to death because he
doubted on her character. Similarly, Rekhalal Sahu (PW-8) has stated
in his examination-in-chief, that the respondent himself has made
statement on telephone, that his daughter Kusum had committed some
error because of which he has killed her. This incriminating evidence
has been totally ignored by the learned trial Court and acquitted the
respondent, hence, this is a fit case where the permission should be
granted for filing acquittal appeal against the respondent.
3. Considered on the submissions and also perused the record of the trial
Court. Rubi Sahu (PW-3) has answered to the leading question put to
her by the prosecutor that she was informed by her husband that is
Rekhalal Sahu (PW-8) that the deceased was done to death by her
father that is respondent, therefore, she was not informed about the
incident by the respondent himself and her only source of information
is her husband. Rekhalal Sahu (PW-8) has stated before the Court that
he heard on telephone from the respondent, making admission that he
had killed his own daughter. In cross-examination, the witness was
confronted with written complaint Ex.P-15, his previous statement
Ex.P-17 and he could not give explanation regarding the contradiction.
The written complaint ExP-15 mentions that Rekhalal Sahu (PW-8)
visited the house of the respondent where the respondent had
informed about beating his own daughter, who was alive at that time
and this report also mentions that the deceased died later on. The
situation in which Rekhalal Sahu (PW-8) gained knowledge of the
incident that has occurred has been totally changed in his Court
Statement, therefore, the learned Sessions Court has rightly
disbelieved him and, further, the statement of Rubi Sahu(PW-3) is only
a hearsay evidence which has not been further confirmed by Rekhalal
Sahu(PW-8) himself. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge
does not need to be interfered, hence, the application for leave to
appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is hereby dismissed.
4. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. stands dismissed and disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Nisha
