SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt Ganga Bai vs Gautam Chandrakar And Another on 13 March, 2018

1

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Acquittal Appeal No.277 of 2010
Smt. Ganga Bai W/o Govind Chandrakar, aged about 23 years,
Resident of Village Kunwa Thana Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha,
District Kabirdham (CG)

—- Appellant
Versus
1. Gautam Chandrakar S/o Paras, aged about 26 years, Resident
of Village Kunwa, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG)
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through PS Pipariya, District Kabirdham
(CG)
—- Respondents

For Appellant : Mrs. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent 1 : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent 2/State : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer

DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
Per Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

13.03.2018

1. Challenging the acquittal of respondent No.1- Gautam

Chandrakar for the offence under Section s 451, 376 and 354 IPC

in S.T. No.33/2009 by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham

(Kawardha) (CG) vide judgment dated 4.2.2010, the prosecutrix

has preferred this appeal on the ground that the trial Court has not

appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and has recorded

illegal and perverse finding in respect of the offence committed by

respondent No.1.

2

2. Mrs. Ranjana Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant

would submit that the prosecutrix had in fact, lodged the report for

offence under Section 354 IPC, however, on wrong advise, she

preferred a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate, on

which, offence under Sections 451 and 376 IPC was also

registered. Therefore, even if the offence under Section 376 IPC

was not made out, the trial Court should have convicted the

accused/respondent No.1 for offence under Section 354 IPC on

the basis of First Information Report (FIR) which depicted the true

incident happened with the prosecutrix.

3. To appreciate the submission, we have perused the entire

record.

4. For an incident which occurred on 7.9.2008 at about 9.00

am, the prosecutrix lodged FIR at 13.30 hrs. on the same day

alleging that when she had gone to the grainyard of her house to

bring gram husk, the accused came over there, caught hold of her

hand, pressed her breast and instructed her to remove her Saree,

on which, she shouted by calling “Chor Chor”, whereafter, her

husband proceeded towards the place, seeing whom, the accused

ran away. After some days, the prosecutrix lodged a private

complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in which her statement was

recorded on 2.1.2009. In this statement, she alleged that the

accused/respondent No.1 has also performed sexual intercourse

with her.

3

5. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was never sent for medical

examination. The trial Judge having found the nature of

allegations in the private complaint lodged by the prosecutrix and

the contents of the charge sheet filed by the Police, committed

both the matters for Sessions Trial.

6. Considering the evidence of Ganga Bai (PW1), Govind

Chandrakar (PW2), Kanti Bai (PW3), Loknath Chandrakar (PW4)

and Sanjay Pundhir (PW5) and the defence witness Lalaram

(DW1), the trial Court has recorded a finding that in view of the

previous land dispute between the parties which is reflected from

the document Ex. D/9 and two different stories narrated by the

prosecutrix, first in her FIR and the second in private complaint,

her case appears to be doubtful. It is also to be seen that after

lodging the FIR, her statement was recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C., in which also she did not inform the Police that the

accused/respondent No.1 has committed sexual intercourse with

her.

7. In our considered view, when the prosecutrix appears to

have made a false complaint of rape against the accused, the trial

Court has rightly concluded that the first FIR for offence under

Section 354 IPC also becomes doubtful.

8. Considering the previous land dispute between the parties,

the trial Court has rightly held that it is not a fit case for convicting

the accused/respondent No.1 for any of the offence.
4

9. There is no substance in this appeal, which fails and is

hereby dismissed.

Sd/ Sd/

Judge Judge
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Ram Prasanna Sharma)

sunita
5

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation