Aasharam Anant vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3975 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Aasharam Anant vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 April, 2025

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                    1/7




                                                      2025:CGHC:14152

                                                                   NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             CRA No. 1388   of 2024

Aasharam Anant S/o Late Shri Sitaram Anant Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Sel, Police Station - Kasdol, District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara
(C.G.)
                                                        ... Appellants(s)
                                  versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station -Kasdol, District
Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.).
                                               ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate.

         For State       :    Mr. Shakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer.



                Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge


Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ

25/04/2025

1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure A-

1) passed by learned Session Judge, (FTC), Balodabazar, Distt-

Bhatapara, (C.G.), in Session Case No.58/2022, whereby the

appellant stands convicted and sentence as under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 450 Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years & of the IPC. fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional RI.

Under Section 376 Imprisonment for life with fine of of the IPC. Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 06 months additional RI.

Under Section 506 Imprisonment for 02 years with fine of of the IPC. Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional RI.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.07.2022, present

appellant/accused has forcefully entered into the house of the

victim and, thereafter, committed forceful sexual intercourse with

her. Subsequently, on 21.08.2022, the appellant again came to

the house of victim, committed sexual intercourse with her and

threatened her that if she discloses the said incident, he will kill

her husband and children and also viral her obscene videos on

internet. Due to which, victim got worried and consumed the

poison. Based upon report, on 22.08.2022 FIR was registered

against the appellant and he has been arrested.

3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed

against the appellant and based upon which, trial Court framed

the charge against him.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as

16 witnesses, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his

defence not examined any witness. Statement of appellant

(accused) was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he

denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded

innocence and false implication.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the

evidence/material available on record, the trial Court vide

impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the

accused/appellants in the manner as described in Para-1 of this

judgment. Hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned

judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available

on record as the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond

the reasonable doubt. There was inordinate delay in the

registration of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the

prosecution. Moreover, the delay of one month has no plausible

explanation in the FIR. The only reason for registration of FIR is

that appellant was working as 'Mansion Maker' and had worked at

the house of the Victim, which dues was not paid by husband of

the victim. There is no evidence/material has been seized from

the appellant by which it can be presumed that the appellant was

blackmailing the victim. Learned Counsel further contended that

husband of victim came to know about her relation with the

appellant, therefore, in such pressure, FIR has been lodged

against the appellant by the victim. Learned trial Court did not

appreciate the contradiction and omission in the prosecution

witnesses. Further, FSL and MLC report of victim found negative.

As such, the appeal deserve to be allowed and the impugned

judgment deserve to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the

impugned judgment would submit that based on material/evidence

available on record, trial Court has rightly passed the impugned

order/judgment and convicted the appellant for the aforementioned

offence/crime. Hence, present appeal being sans merits is liable to

be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of

the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

9. The question arises before this Court whether the victim was a

consenting party or not? Prosecutrix in her statement recorded

under Section 164 of Cr.PC has stated that her husband was a

driver and she is a president of the women's group. Janki Bai

Anant, a member of our women's group, used to come to her

house with her husband ie present appellant (Asharam Anant) to

repay the loan amount than she met with the appellant. When

appellant comes to her house for repayment of loan, he used to tell

her that he likes her, wants to make physical relations and wish to

marry her. On 23rd July 2022, appellant came to her house,

showed her bathing video on his mobile and threatened that if she

tells this to anyone, he will kill her husband and children and for

this reason, she did not tells this to anyone. On 23 rd July 2022,

appellant came to her house, rang the bell (three times) and when

she opened the door, he forcefully entered inside and pushed her

on the ground and, thereafter, made physical relation with her

against her will. She further stated that on 21.08.2022, when her

husband had gone to the market, appellant came to her house and

said that he wanted to meet her, however, when she shouted and

called her mother-in-law, appellant fled away from there and at

around 11:30 p.m., he started harassing her by sending the

messages, hence, she got upset and drank the pesticide, which

was kept in the house at around 12:00 p.m.

PW-1/victim-prosecutrix in her Court statement has

stated that appellant/accused has occasionally made a phone calls

and said that he liked her, wants to established physical relation

with her and also wish to meet her. On 25.04.2022,

appellant/accused showed her obscene video to her, however, she

did not disclose this fact to her husband. On refusal of establishing

physical relation, appellant threatened her that he will viral her

obscene video on social network and defame her. He also

threatened that he is having her brother's mobile number and will

forwarded the said video to him. She also stated that on the date of

alleged incident i.e, 23.07.2022, appellant/accused came to her

house and committed sexual intercourse with her and at that time,

her two daughters (elder aged about 06 years and younger aged

03 years) were sleeping in the house, however, her husband has

gone out of the village for performing his duty at that time.

10. PW-13/Dr. Aishwarya Thakre in her deposition has stated that no

injury has been found on the body of prosecutrix during

examination. She opined nothing with regard to recent sexual

intercourse upon the prosecutrix.

11. It is well settled law that in the cases of sexual assault, conviction

can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the

prosecutrix. However, on close scrutiny of the evidence makes it

clear that though at the time of alleged incident two daughters of

victim (aged about 06 years & 03 years respectively) were present

and sleeping in the house, but there is no material/evidence come

on record that they have raised the alarm. Further, looking to the

contradiction and exaggeration in the evidence of the prosecutrix,

her conduct during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto

coupled with the medical evidence which also lends no support to

the prosecution case, it is clear that the prosecutrix was a

consenting party in this case to the act of the accused person.

12. For the foregoing reasons/discussions, this Court is of the

considered opinion that trial Court has committed error in

convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforementioned

offence/crime.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned

judgment dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set-aside.

The appellant is acquitted from the aforementioned charges. He is

reported to be in jail, therefore, he be set free forthwith if no longer

required in any other criminal case.

14. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of CrPC, the

appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of form

No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of

Rs.25,000/- with one reliable surety in the like amount before the

Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months

alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave

petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the

aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted

to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and

compliance.

                 Sd/-                                   Sd/-
          (Arvind Kumar Verma)                     (Ramesh Sinha)
                Judge                               Chief Justice


J/-