Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs Maruti Kishan Pawar on 16 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Acquittal Appeal No. 64 of 2021
ABC, D/o Hargovind Lal Dewangan, aged about 31 years,
Caste Dewangan, R/o Ward No. 27, House No. 394,
Ramsagar Para, Ama Talab Road, near Shyam Kirana
Store, Dhamtari P.S. City Kotwali, District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Maruti Kishan Pawar, S/o Kishan Pawar, aged about 25
years, R/o Village Sonpatti Tanda Avasar, Post Aalmala,
District Latur, Presently Resident of B. S. F. G. Company,
R-118116312, Head Quarter, Tilligudi Puchh Bihar West
Bengal
2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Office Ganj,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu,
Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Naveen Shukla, Advocate.
For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik,
Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
16.01.2023
1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Appellant
against the judgment dated 18.09.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Session Judge, F.T.C., Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.) in Session Trial Number
70/2017, whereby the learned Sessions Judge
acquitted Respondent No.1/accused from the charges
punishable under Sections 354 & 376 part (1)/(2) of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. As per prosecution story, the complainant/prosecutrix
made a written complaint to the concerned Police
Station alleging therein that on 22.12.2013, when she
was going by train from Raipur to Raigarh during that
time, Respondent No.1/accused met her in train and
they got to know each other. They have exchanged their
mobile numbers and after that they started talking on
phone. It is further alleged that the Respondent
No.1/accused told the prosecutrix that he will perform
marriage with her. On 20.11.2015, the Respondent
No.1/accused called the prosecutrix and after the
telephonic talk they were met at one University in
Raipur. Thereafter, allegedly Respondent No.1/accused
taken the prosecutrix to one Dolphin Hotel where at
night he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.
As Respondent No.1/accused assured the prosecutrix
that he will perform marriage with her, therefore, no
action was taken by the prosecutrix. Thereafter, when
Respondent No.1/accused ignored her and denied
performing marriage with her then she made a written
complaint to the concerned Police Station. On the basis
of said written complaint, offence has been registered
against Respondent No.1. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court framed
the charges against Respondent No.1. To robe
Respondent No.1 in the crime-in-question, the
prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses.
3. After completion of trial, the Trial Court vide impugned
judgment dated 18.09.2019 acquitted Respondent No.1
from the charges punishable under Sections 354 & 376
(1)/(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant/victim submits that on the false pretext of
marriage, Respondent No.1/accused committed sexual
intercourse with the victim. While acquitting
Respondent No.1/accused, the Court below failed to
appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix properly. The
statement of the victim is fully reliable, therefore, the
Court below committed manifest illegality in acquitting
Respondent No.1/accused. Hence, the order of acquittal
deserves to be set aside.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
No.1 opposes the above argument made by learned
Counsel for the Appellant/victim. It is submitted by the
Counsel that on perusal of statement of the victim, it is
well established that she was a consenting party in the
alleged act as she herself joined the company of
Respondent No.1, went with him in a hotel and stayed
with him with her own consent. There is nothing on
record which shows that Respondent No.1 at any point
of time have made any false promise of marriage to the
victim and there is also nothing on record which shows
that the said alleged act of commission of sexual
intercourse was done on the false pretext of marriage.
Therefore, the Court below has rightly acquitted
Respondent No.1.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and perused the record available with utmost
circumspection.
7. In her Court statement, the prosecutrix (PW-5) deposed
that first time she met with Respondent No.1/accused
in train when she was going to Raigarh in December,
2014. She admitted the fact that they both have
exchanged their mobile numbers and after that started
talking with each other. She further admitted that in
the month of June 2015, she started a private job in
Gariyaband (C.G.) and purchased her personal cell
phone and continued to talk with Respondent
No.1/accused. She further admitted that they both
have stayed whole night in Dolphin Hotel, Raipur (C.G.)
where for booking a room, they both have submitted
their identifications. They have ordered meals inside the
hotel. In paragraph 16 of her cross-examination, she
admitted that after the incident also, she used to talk
with the accused on mobile phone. She further
admitted that after the incident, she didn't tell anyone
about the incident.
8. In paragraph 19 of cross-examination of the
prosecutrix, she admitted that when the accused left
her at Raipur at that time, he made a proposal for
marriage. But, there is no evidence available on record
which shows that before commission of act of sexual
intercourse, at any point of time, Respondent
No.1/accused made any false promise of marriage to
the victim. There is nothing on record which shows that
after the incident also, they both have met anywhere
and Respondent No.1/accused committed act of sexual
intercourse with the victim making any promise of
marriage. Therefore, I do not find any substance on the
argument made by learned Counsel for the Appellant
that the alleged act was committed by Respondent
No.1/accused on the false pretext of marriage.
9. The Supreme Court in case of Anjanappa V. State of
Karnataka, 2014 Cri. L.J. 368 has held that order of
acquittal will have to be disturbed if it is perverse. Para
9 of the above judgment states as under:-
"9. It is well settled that an order of acquittal is
not to be set aside lightly. If the view taken
by the trial court is a reasonably possible
view, it is not to be disturbed. If two views
are possible and if the view taken by the
trial court is a reasonably possible view,
then the appellate court should not disturb
it just because it feels that another view of
the matter is possible. However, an order of
acquittal will have to be disturbed if it is
perverse. We have examined the trial court's
order of acquittal in light of above
principles. We are of the considered opinion
that the High Court was justified in setting
it aside as it is perverse."
10. Thus, taking into consideration the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in above-referred case and
in view of finding recorded in foregoing paragraphs and
as a fall out and the consequence of the aforesaid
discussion, the acquittal appeal is held to be devoid of
merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
