Chattisgarh High Court
Johe Lal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 January, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:3990
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 185 of 2005
Johelal, son of Shri Heeralal Marar, aged about 21 years, resident of
village Relayee Distt. Kabeerdham (Kawardha) Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station S. Lohara, Distt.
Kabeerdham.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment on Board
22-01-2025
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
26.2.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in
Special Case No.71/2004 whereby he stands convicted and sentenced
as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 454 of Indian Penal RI for six months, pay a fine of
Code. Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for one month.
Under Section 3(i)(xi) of RI for six months, pay a fine of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) suffer additional RI for one month.
Act, 1989
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.3.2004 at around
10 am complainant/prosecutrix was making food at her home, her
husband had gone to Lohara and her in-laws to the agricultural field. At
that time, the accused/appellant came to her home and told that he
came to take the clothes given a month ago for stitching. When the
complainant expressed her ignorance about it, he insisted for
searching the same. While she was searching for his clothes, he came
from behind, caught hold of her, outraged her modesty and proposed
for making physical relation. On this, she abused him and ran out of
the home. The accused then fled from there on his bicycle. She
disclosed the incident to her husband in the evening and next day her
husband along with the villagers went to the house of the accused
where the accused offered Rs.4000/- in the panchayat for compromise.
However, on 24.3.2004 the complainant lodged a report against him.
During investigation, spot map was prepared, cash of Rs.4000/- given
by the accused in the panchayat was seized from Tadiram; caste
certificate of the complainant was seized and after completing
formalities of investigation, charge sheet under Section 456, 354 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the Act of 1989") was filed
against the appellant. Learned trial Court framed charges under
Sections 454, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989
against the accused/appellant, to which he abjured his guilt and prayed
for trial.
03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 8
witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and
false implication. In his defence he examined one Sautar as DW-1.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence
this appeal.
05. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and liable to be
set aside. The FIR was lodged with a delay of about five days without
any justifiable explanation. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate
the fact that statements of the prosecution witnesses including the
complainant suffer from contradiction and omission which makes the
whole prosecution case doubtful against the appellant. Thus, looking
the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution,
conviction of the appellant is not legally sustainable and he deserves to
be acquitted of all the charges.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the
impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having regard
to the overall evidence on record, oral and documentary, has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment
which calls for no interference by this Court. Hence the appeal being
without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant
was charged under Sections 454, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of
the Act of 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as
mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
09. PW-3 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident she was all
alone at home and cooking Daliya (porridge). At around 10 am the
accused came to her home and asked for his clothes given for
stitching. When she told him to come on some other day as she is all
alone, he insisted for searching his clothes. While she was searching
the clothes, he came from behind and pressed her breast and also
asked for physical relation. However, she somehow freed herself from
him and ran out of the home. The accused also followed her and fled
from there. She narrated the incident to her husband in the evening
who informed about it to his parents also. Next day her husband along
with two elderly people of the village went to the village of the accused
where panchayat was held. Her husband informed her that the
accused has deposited Rs.4000/- with the Panch but they did not
accept it and thereafter they lodged report Ex.P/3 which bears her
signature from A to A part.
In cross-examination she states that at the time of incident she
abused the accused, on which he went out of the home. She states
that the accused and herself came out of the home almost together
and she did not raise any hue and cry after coming out of the home.
She admits that about a month ago the accused had given clothes to
her husband for stitching and that prior to the incident, the accused had
come 2-3 times earlier for taking his clothes. She states that she
informed her husband about the incident on the same day but lodged
report after four days. She clarifies that as her husband was ill for two
days, therefore, report was not lodged earlier.
10. PW-4 husband of the complainant states that on the date of
incident he had gone to Lohara in connection with stitching work and
on his return in the evening his wife/complainant informed him about
the incident. Next day he along with one elderly people of the village
Babuji went to the Village-Relai of the accused where panchayat was
held. In the panchayat, the accused initially denied the allegation but
later on confessed the crime. Though the accused and his father were
offering Rs.4,000/-, but he refused to accept it and told them of making
a report. He states that after return from Village-Relai he fell ill and
after recovery, went with his wife to lodge a report.
In cross-examination he admits that about a month prior to the
date of incident, the accused had given clothes for stitching and that he
had come 2-3 times earlier for taking his clothes. However, he denied
the suggestion that he demanded Rs.25,000/- in panchayat at Relai.
11. PW-5 Babuji states that husband of the prosecutrix informed him
that the accused outraged modesty of his wife. Thereafter, he along
with the husband of the prosecutrix went to the village of the accused
where in presence of elderly people of the village, initially the accused
denied commission of crime but later on confessed and gave
Rs.4,000/- for compromise. In cross-examination he admits that they
called the father of the accused in the panchayat meeting where he
was made to understand that if the prosecutrix reported the matter, his
son would be sent to jail and then he accepted the mistake of accused
and asked the panchayat members to settle the matter. He also admits
that at the time of incident the accused went to the house of the
prosecutrix for taking his clothes.
12. PW-6 Jhadiram also states that panchayat was convened at the
instance of husband of the prosecutrix where Rs.4000/- was offered by
the accused for settling the matter which was kept with him and later
on recovered by the police.
13. PW-2 Dr. Anjana Lal states that the prosecutrix was complaining
of only pain in both side of her breast and there was no external injury
on her body. Her medical report is Ex.P/2.
14. True it is that ordinarily the evidence of the prosecutrix should
not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement
has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if her
evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. While rape causes
the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim, a false allegation of
rape causes equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as
well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of
false implication. Indisputably, in a case of sexual assault, the evidence
of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold
that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable
and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which
govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.
15. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position, close
scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that before lodging FIR, village
panchayat was held where money was demanded for settling the
matter. The incident is said to have taken place on 20.3.2004 whereas
FIR (Ex.P/3) was lodged on 24.3.2004 with explanation for this delay
as illness of husband of the prosecutrix. As per medical evidence, no
external or internal injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix and
she was only complaining of pain in her breast. Defence of the
accused is that he had given some clothes to husband of the
prosecutrix for stitching and when he demanded his clothes back he
refused. Defence Witness Sautar has also supported the defence of
the accused/appellant. The prosecutrix has admitted in cross-
examination that after the incident, the accused and herself came out
of the home almost together but she did not raise any hue and cry after
coming out of the home. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances
of the case, the conduct of the prosecutrix during the alleged incident
and subsequent thereto, before lodging FIR village panchayat was
convened; delay in lodging the FIR without any satisfactory explanation
and the evidence of the witnesses, there appears a reasonable doubt
on the prosecution case regarding involvement of the appellant in the
crime in question. Being so, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of
the charges by giving him benefit of doubt.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of
learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the
charges under Section 454 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of
1989 by extending him benefit of doubt. He is reported to be on bail,
therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six
months from today in view of provisions of Section 437A of CrPC.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Digitally
Judge
MOHD signed by
AKHTAR MOHD
KHAN AKHTAR
KHAN
Khan
