State Of Chhattisgarh vs Teepu Sultan Ali
2022 Latest Caselaw 181 Chatt

                                1

                                                              NAFR
       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                  CRMP No. 108 of 2018
     State of Chhatisgarh through District Magistrate Korba,
     District Korba (CG)
                                                  ---- Petitioner
                            Versus
1.   Teepu Sultan Ali, aged about 22 years, S/o Liymat Ali

2.   Kishanlal, aged about 21 years, S/o Late Panchram

3.   Aabid Hussain, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Wajid
     Hussain

     All r/o Falwaripara, Chhuri, Katghora, District Korba CG
                                             ---- Respondents

     For petitioner/State   :       Ms. Smita Jha, PL
     For Respondents        :       Shri Vikash Pandey Adv.



       Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                      Order On Board
11/01/2022

     Heard on admission.

2    This petition has been filed under Section 378 (3) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against

the judgment impugned dated 28.03.2017 passed by Special

Additional Sessions Judge in Special Sessions Case No.

44/2015 acquitting the respondents/accused of the charge

under Sections 354, 323 IPC and 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. The case put forth by the prosecution in short is that on

9.9.2015 at about 2 PM one Krishna Kumar had caught hold of

the hands of the prosecutrix in the verandah of the

Government Higher Secondary School, Chhuri with an

intention to outrage her modesty, which ended up in scuffle

between the two. Allegedly, said Krishna Kumar had then

called his sister Urmila and brother-in-law Johan to the school

where ultimately the prosecutrix was scolded by the teacher

and a compromise was arrived at. It is alleged that after the

prosecutrix reached home, the respondents/accused went to

her and putting her under threat of her photographs being

displayed on television in order to defame her. After the

prosecutrix informed her parents about the incident, written

report was made by her to the police on 11.09.2015 based on

which FIR Ex. P-3 was registered against the

respondents/accused for the offences u/s 354, 323 IPC and 8

of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, challan

was also filed against them under the same sections followed

by framing of charge accordingly.

4. In order to prove the complicity of the

respondents/accused in the crime in question, the prosecution

has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the

respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C where they pleaded their innocence and false

implication in the case.

5. After hearing the parties, the Court below acquitted the

respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them.

Hence this petition by the State seeking leave to appeal.

6. Counsel for the petitioner/State attacking the judgment

of acquittal submits that prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated in her

evidence that on the date of incident the respondents/accused

came to her house with a letter and asked her to copy the

same in her own handwriting and that when she did not agree

for the same, accused Aabid made a cut mark on her little

finger. She then copied the said letter brought by Aabid by

writing half with blood and the remaining with pen. According

to him, the prosecutrix has further stated that on her way to

school, accused Teepu used to stalk her, catch hold of her

hand by singing and whistling by looking at her. Accused

Teepu had also threatened her to defame her by showing her

photographs on television and pasting the poster everywhere.

All these narrations of the prosecutrix, according to the State

counsel, are sufficient for the conviction of the

respondents/accused for the offence registered by the police,

but the Court below has erroneously acquitted them of the

same, which is wholly illegal and liable to be set aside.

7. Counsel for the respondents/accused however supports

the judgment impugned being based due appreciation of the

evidence on record, particularly that of the prosecutrix (PW-3),

and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below

need no interference by this Court.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

9. Against accused Kishan, the prosecutrix has not stated

anything. She has rather stated that he did nothing with her.

As regards other two namely Teepu Sultan and Aabid Hussain,

if the overall evidence of the prosecutrix is seen, it transpires

that they were on inimical terms with her much prior to the

incident alleged, and this could be one of the reasons for

roping them in a false case. Since the parents came to know

about the incident through the prosecutrix and did not see it

with their own eyes, their testimony loses its significance,

particularly when the prosecutrix herself has not specifically

stated as to before how many days of the school incident with

Krishna Kumar, the accused Teepu and Aabid had made her

write the letter and when Teepu Sultan had caught hold of her

hand. The Court below thus does not appear to have gone

wrong in any manner in awarding acquittal to the

respondents/accused, and therefore, the findings recorded by

him cannot be interfered with in this petition. Even otherwise,

the settled legal position in such cases is that if two views can

be possible from the material available on record, the one

favouring the accused has to be preferred.

10. In aforesaid view of the matter, leave to appeal sought

for by the State is hereby refused and the petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Jyotishi