Chattisgarh High Court
Sevna Ram Bhuihar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:17312
NAFR
Digitally signed
by PRAKASH
PRAKASH KUMAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.17
10:55:37
+0530
Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2012
• Rita Ekka, D/o Shri Jagarnath Ekka, aged about 21 years, Caste -
Uranw, R/o Village Maharajganj Tola, Makyathi Para, Police Station -
Balrampur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh,
--- Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station Balrampur, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh,
--- Respondent
AND
Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2012
• Sevna Ram Bhuihar, S/o Nanka Ram Bhuihar, aged about 24 years,
R/o Chirkoma Kharatola , P.S. Balrampur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh,
---Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O., P.S. Balrampur, Distt. Surguja,
Chhattisgarh,
--- Respondent
For Applicant (CRR No.47/2012) : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate
For Applicant (CRR No.126/2012) : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt.
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
15/04/2025
1. Since both revisions arise out of same incident, therefore, they are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. The present revisions filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. are directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
04.01.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.73/2010 (preferred by Rita
Ekka) and 24.01.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.77/2010
(preferred by Sevna Ram Bhuihar) by the First Additional Sessions
Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.), wherein the learned Appellate
Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated
31.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ramanujganj, District - Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.118/2008
convicting the accused/applicants under Section Section 317 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced them
rigorous imprisonment for 3-3 years each and fine of Rs.500-500/-
each, in default thereof, additional S.I. for 6-6 months each.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.03.2008, the
complainant Tijeet has lodged a written complaint in Police Station
Balrampur, District - Surguja stating that on 08.03.2008 at about 05:00
PM, when she was going to her parental house, on way, she heard
cries of a child near Khand Nalah and upon search she found a newly
born baby girl lying on the spot. Thereafter, she took the said child to
her parental house where she cleaned her and fed her. It is further
alleged that some unknown person has left the new born girl child
unprotected in the abandoned condition after birth and has left away.
On the above background, on the next day, the FIR (Ex.P/13) was
lodged on the basis of written complaint against unknown person.
4. During investigation, blood stained clothes were seized vide seizure
memo (Ex.P/1) from the house of Parwati (PW-01), mother of the
complainant. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/6 and the statements
of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the
present applicants before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. The accused/applicants abjured the guilt
and prayed for trial.
5. The learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, after
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record,
convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the opening
paragraph of this judgment. Hence, these revisions.
6. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicants submit that the learned
Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly
appreciating the evidence available on record, were not justified in
convicting and sentencing the applicants for the aforesaid offence.
Learned Counsel appearing for the accused Rita Ekka submits that
though she has given birth to a child but the prosecution has utterly
failed to prove that the applicant Rita Ekka has given birth to the
alleged child who has been recovered from an open place. He further
submits that Parvati (PW-01) who works as mid-wife (dai), also helped
in delivering the child of Rita Ekka has also not stated that the alleged
child belongs to her (Rita). Further, the complainant of the case, Tiljeet,
who found the alleged child, has not been examined by the
prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the
applicants that applicants be acquitted of the charge leveled against
them.
7. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while supporting the impugned
judgment, submits that both the learned Courts have rightly convicted
and sentenced the applicants and there is no illegality or infirmity in the
same warranting interference by this Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
9. It is not in dispute that Parvati (PW-01) is the mother of the
complainant Tiljeet. Parwati works as mid-wife (dai) and she has
helped accused Rita Ekka in delivering the child. This witness in her
Court statement has stated that the applicant Sevna Ram had come to
her house along with his wife (Rita Ekka) for helping them in delivering
the child. She further stated that applicant Rita has given birth to a girl
child, thereafter, the applicants left her house. This apart, the police
has not recorded the statement of this witness. However, this witness
in her cross-examination, has admitted that the girl child, who is
alleged to have been recovered and was aged about only two days,
was brought by her daughter Tiljeet to her house. She further admitted
that on the date of incident, one Ram Girwar of village Sendari has
come to her house along with his wife for delivery of their child and
after delivery, they had left her house. She further admitted that the
accused/applicants had also left the house after taking the child. From
the statement of this witness, it does not appear that this witness
herself made delivery of the alleged girl child brought by her daughter,
inasmuch as there is inconsistency in her statement with respect to
delivery of the child.
10.Thepupal (PW-02) who in his Court Statement has stated that he
knows the applicants. This witness further stated that Parvati (PW-01)
has not stated anything about the alleged incident. Dr. R.S. Markam
(PW-04) in his statement has deposed that on 09.03.2008 one newly
born girl child was brought before him for examination and as per the
examination report (Ex.P/4), the age of the girl child was about 2-3
days, weighing 2.750 gm and all the organs were well functioning. This
witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not done
any test over the girl child with that of her so called parents
(accused/applicants) which could prove that the alleged child was of
the applicants.
11.In view of the above discussions, it is clear that Parvati (PW-01) has
not specifically stated that the child brought by her daughter, belongs to
the accused/applicants. Further, as per the prosecution case, clothes
of applicant Rita Ekka were seized vide Ex.P/1 on the basis of her
memorandum statement (Ex.P/2) but it has failed to prove that the
alleged child was that of applicant Rita Ekka. Moreover, Dr. R.S.
Markam (PW-04) who medically examined the newly born child, has
not conducted any test which could show that the said child belongs to
the accused/applicants.
12.Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly,
the statements of the Parvati (PW-01), Dr. R.S. Markam (PW-04)
coupled with the contents of FIR (Ex.P/13) lodged by the complainant
Tiljeet (not examined), the prosecution case appears to be suspicious
and not reliable. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the bounden
duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but
in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to discharge its
duty by adducing cogent and clinching evidence to show the complicity
of the applicants in the crime in question.
13.For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the
applicants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt as
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court
were totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicants for
the aforesaid offence.
14.Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the
Court of JMFC dated 31.03.2010 and that of Appellate Court dated
04.01.2012 and 24.01.2012 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside
and the applicants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them by
extending them the benefit of doubt.
15.In the result, both the criminal revisions are allowed.
16.Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail
bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in
view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Prakash
