Ramavatar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4200 Chatt

                                                                                      NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                        CRA No. 1421 of 2021

                 Ramavatar Gupta S/o Shri Laxmidayal Gupta Aged About 48
                Years R/o Ghotiya Road, Kabirdham , Police Station Kawardha ,
                Civil And Revenue District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ., District :
                Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh )

                                                                         ---- Appellant

                                                   Versus

                State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Police Station
                Kabirdham, Civil And Revenue District Kabirdhma Chhattisgarh.,
                District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

                                                                         ---- Respondent


For the Appellant               :       Shri Devesh Kela, Advocate
For the State                   :       Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For the Complainant             :       Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Judgment On Board 05 /07/2022

1. This appeal by the accused/appellant under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the order dated 08/09/2021 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocity Act) Kabirdham (C.G.) in Atrocity Special Criminal Case No. 762/2020 whereby the application for discharge has been dismissed and order dated 22/09/2021 whereby the charge for commission of offence under Section 323, 506-B and 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 had been framed against the appellant.

2. Allegation against the present appellant is that prosecutrix is

tenant in the house of appellant and he is residing in another house situated in Ghotiya. It was further stated that on 21/05/2019 at about 12 p.m. appellant came to the first floor of the tenanted house from opening the door of the back side of the house and thereafter knocked the door of the room of prosecutrix whereupon she woke up and asked that who is there, then it was informed that he is Ramavtar thereafter prosecutrix stated that she will not open the door and asked him to come in the morning. Thereafter appellant kicked the door of the room whereupon the door was opened and thereafter appellant committed rape on her and threatened that if she will tell the incident to any other or lodge a report in the police station, he will kill her and thereafter assaulted her on her back and head and because of which she has pain on her body. On the basis of said complaint offence was registered against the present appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the perusal of

the entire charge-sheet the charges could not be framed by learned Special Judge. He submits that there are material in the charge-sheet which goes to show that the false case has been made out against the applicant. In support of his submission he submits that there is an averment of Nilu Maskole, who has stated that nothing has been done as narrated by the prosecution, secondly he submitted that she has submitted DNA report against the prosecution, therefore, it cannot be stated that the appellant has committed crime.

4. There is an enmity between the appellant and the prosecutrix as

the appellant has filed eviction case against the prosecutrix for recovery of rent, therefore, she has also threatened that she would implicate him in a false case which he comes to the present incident.

5. He further submits that on the basis of complaint made by the

appellant, earlier the police has investigated the crime and prepared the closure report, however, this closure report was not accepted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Thereafter the investigation was carried out and charge-sheet has been filed, so on the basis of above submissions the charges have been framed against the present appellant by the learned Special Judge, SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, Kabirdham.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the prosecutrix, in

her statement under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 of CrPC has categorically stated that crime has been committed by the appellant, so far as the DNA report and other submissions made by the counsel for the appellant is concerned that is required to be proved in the trial and the counsel for the appellant would have fair chances to rebut the case of prosecution. She further submits that in order to frame charges only the prima facie case has to be seen by the Courts and therefore, on the basis of material available on record in the charge-sheet, the learned Court below has prima facie found the offences to be made out and trial is yet to be concluded. She further submits that the appellant may raise all those grounds which have been raised before this Court, before the trial Court.

7. Shri Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/prosecutrix adopts the argument advanced by the learned State counsel.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to

the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this case has no merits. The reasons is that first of all the defense which has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant is yet to be considered at the time of trial. Learned Special Court has prima facie found on the basis of evidences collected by the prosecution that the case is made out and therefore framed the charge. Earlier the closure report which is submitted by the prosecution cannot be looked into at this stage because it was not accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal being filed against the framing of charges, therefore, taking into consideration all facts and circumstances and material placed before me, I do not find any merits in this appeal, therefore, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

9. It has brought to the notice of the Court that the records of the

trial Court were summoned earlier, therefore, the trial could not take place, hence the records of the Court below shall be sent immediately to the concerned Court to commence the trial. It is expected that the trial Court would try all endeavor to conclude the trial within a period of six months preferably.

10. With the above observations, appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

Kamde