Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Harihar Yadav on 1 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:19829-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 147 of 2018
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bagicha
District Jashpur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
Harihar Yadav S/o Kunj Bihari Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village
Puranga, Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears on
behalf of Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
D.B:-Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal,
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
01/05/2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning
the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29/08/2017 passed
by the learned Special Judge, (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act), Jashpur (C.G.) in Special Case
NARESH KUMAR
by NARESH
KAMDE
KUMAR Date:
KAMDE 2025.05.02
10:34:14 +0530
No.16/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the
offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 506 of IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Atrocities
Act').
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on
08/01/2016, a written report was lodged by the prosecutrix before
the Police Station, Bagicha of District Jashpur against the
respondent, alleging inter alia, that on 25/12/2015, she came to her
parental house at Puranga for celebrating 'Christmas festival' and on
29/12/2015, she has attended the marriage of one Vinod Tirkey at
7.00 p.m. and while she was returning from the wedding, she was
stopped by the respondent and forcefully dragged her towards
narrow culvert near the house of Alvis and committed sexual
intercourse with her forcefully and was threatened to kill, if she
disclosed the alleged incident. Based upon the alleged information,
an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the respondent with regard
to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC in connection
with Crime No.5/2016 and after recording the statement of the
prosecutrix and others' and that by completing the usual
investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District Jashpur against the
respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376
of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act and the matter was
thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court where based upon
the materials available on record, the charge has been framed
against him for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (1), 506
of IPC and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, which
was denied by him and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the
prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited
24 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his
defence.
4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the
prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, arrived at
a conclusion that she was a consenting party with regard to offence
committed on 29/12/2015 and accordingly, the respondent has been
acquitted from the offence mentioned hereinabove and, being
aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits
that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not
the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the
materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the
prosecutrix has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby
erred in acquitting him as such.
6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has supported the impugned judgment as passed by the
trial Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the entire record carefully.
8. The respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the
offence punishable under Sections 376 (1), 506 of IPC and also
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, on account of the incident
occurred on 29/12/2015, when the prosecutrix was returning after
attending the wedding of one Vinod Tirkey at her parental house at
village Puranga, and was stopped by the respondent, and
committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully.
9. From perusal of the record, it appears that after the
occurrence of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was examined
medically by Dr. V. Bhakhala (PW-7), who in her report (Ex.P/14)
has neither found any injury on her, nor she has given any specific
opinion regarding forceful intercourse upon her. That apart, from
perusal of the statement of Jodhan Yadav (PW-8), particularly
paragraph 7, it appears that on account of the alleged incident, a
meeting was convened at village Puranga on 04/01/2016, i.e. at the
parental village of the prosecutrix, where the prosecutrix has stated
specifically that she wanted to live with the respondent. He deposed
further that the respondent and his father was, therefore, called, but
they did not come and since they did not come, therefore, the
alleged report was lodged by her before the concerned police station
and that too on 08/01/2016, even without assigning any proper
reasons. After considering the said materials placed on record, the
trial Court has, therefore, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the
prosecutrix was a consenting party with regard to alleged offence
and the respondent has accordingly been, acquitted from the
commission of alleged offence and, we, therefore, do not find any
infirmity in the same, so as to call for any interference in this appeal.
10. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
Kamde
