State Of Chhattisgarh vs Aditya Narayan Tiwari 38 … on 23 February, 2018




ACQA No. 480 of 2010

 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Janakpur,
District Korea (CG)

—- Petitioner


 Aditya Narayan Tiwari S/o Vanshdhari Prasad Tiwari, aged about
33 years, R/o Kudratola, PS Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, District
Korea (CG)

—- Respondent

For Appellant/State Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate

DB.: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma

Order On Board By

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.


1. Heard.

2. The State has preferred this appeal to assail the legality and

validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the

Special Judge (Atrocities), Korea at Baikunthpur (CG), acquitting

the accused/respondent of the charges under Section 376 of

IPC and under Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989.

3. The prosecution case, as projected in the charge sheet, was that

on 4.3.2009, at about 7-8 p.m., the prosecutrix was proceeding

towards the house of her friend Taramati to attend the

marriage through the back side of her house. When she was on

her way, the accused/respondent caught hold of her, dragged

her to some distance, felled her beneath a mango tree,

upturned her petticoat and thereafter, committed forcible

sexual intercourse. When the prosecutrix threatened that the

incident would be informed to her mother, the accused slapped

her, for which, she sustained swelling on her cheeks. Because of

the incident, the prosecutrix did not attend the marriage and

straightway went to the house of her maternal uncle

Vanshrakhan, where his son Karan Singh (PW-3), a boy aged

about 13 years, was sleeping. The prosecutrix also went asleep

beside Karan Singh . On the next morning, the prosecutrix went

back to her house and informed the incident to her mother

Ramkali (PW-7), Village Kotwar Ramnaresh Panika and Panch

Khubchand Baiga. The prosecutrix along with Ramkali, her

mother and Jawohar Singh, her brother-in-law (Jija) went to

Police Station Janakpur and lodged written report. The

prosecutrix and the accused were medically examined; report of

FSL was obtained and; case diary statements of witnesses were

recorded. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 9

witnesses. The accused abjured the guilt but did not examine

any defence witnesses.

4. After marshalling the evidence available on record, the trial

Court has held that the prosecution case is doubtful and the

prosecution has not succeeded in proving the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the


6. The prosecutrix and her sister Sita Bai were married on the

same day, but both of them deserted their husband and started

residing in their parental house. Their mother Ramkali (PW-7) is

a member of Janpad Panchayat, Janakpur. From the statement

of the prosecutrix (PW-1), it is also revealed that her sister Sita

Bai had applied for appointment as Aanganbadi worker within

the same Janpad Panchayat, where here mother is a member.

Wife of the accused had also applied for the said post and when

the recruitment process was going on, the accused objected to

the candidature of Sita Bai on the ground that the children of an

office bearer of the Janpad Panchayat cannot be appointed as

Aanganbadi worker. Even otherwise, Sita Bai being only VII

standard pass, was less qualified than the wife of the accused,

who is X standard pass. It has also come in the evidence that

when the accused raised objection in the meeting of the Janpad

Panchayat, an altercation took place between him and Jawohar

Singh (PW-2), who is the second husband of Sita Bai.

7. In the above background, the prosecutrix alleges that she was

subjected to sexual intercourse at about 7 – 8 p.m. on 4.3.2009

and immediately after the incident, she reached the house of

her maternal uncle Vanshrakhan. However, Karan Singh, son of

Vanshrakhan, would state in his case diary statement Ex.D/2

that the prosecutrix reached his house at about 1:00 a.m. In his

Court statement, Karan Singh has not stated about the exact

time when the prosecutrix reached his house as, according to

him, he went asleep at about 9:30 p.m., which means till 9.30

p.m. the prosecutrix had not reached Vanshrakhan’s house. In

the Patwari map -Ex.P/8 proved by PW-4 Chhattarsai Nagdev

(Patwari), the distance about various locations are mentioned

indicating that the distance between the house of the

prosecutrix and the accused is 1 km and the distance between

the house of the prosecutrix and other houses in the village is

about 100 metres. Thus, even if distance between the house of

the prosecutrix and house of Vanshrakhan is not mentioned, its

distance would be about 100 metres. If the prosecutrix was

subjected to sexual intercourse in between 7-8 p.m. and

immediately thereafter went to the house of Vanshrakhan, she

should have reached there by 8.30 p.m. However, as per the

Court statement of PW-3 Karan Singh, the prosecutrix did not

reach his house till 9.30 pm and as per his case diary statement,

she reached there at 1:00 am.


8. The prosecutrix states that she was proceeding to attend the

marriage in the house of her friend Taramati in a nightie,

whereas, PW-3 Karan Singh would state that on the date of the

incident, the prosecutrix was wearing Salwar Kameez. The

medical report about commission of rape is also not definite

because the prosecutrix is a married lady habitual to sexual


9. Ramkali (PW-7), who is the mother of the prosecutrix, states

that the prosecutrix started from the house at about 8:30 p.m.

to attend the marriage in her friend’s house and that she was

informed about the incident at about 8:00 a.m. on the next

morning. She also admits about the dispute concerning the

candidature of her elder daughter Sita Bai and the wife of the

accused. She further admits that the house of her brother

Vanshrakhan is at a distance of 1 ½ furlong, which would be

about 200 metres. She also states that on the date of the

incident, her daughter was wearing Salwar Kameez, which is

contrary to the statement of the prosecutrix that she was

wearing a nightie.

10. In view of the previous animosity between the parties

concerning the appointment of Aanganbadi worker and for the

reason that the mother of the prosecutrix is an elected member

of Janpad Panchayat, along with the material contradictions in

the prosecution case, the trial Court has rightly held that it

would not be safe to convict the accused for committing the

offence under Section 376 of IPC .

11. We are in full agreement with the judgment rendered by the

trial Court.

12. The acquittal appeal, being bereft of any substance is liable to

be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/-

Judge Judge

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) ( Ram Prasanna Sharma)


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *