SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The State Of Chhattisgarh vs Bhagwati Prasad Arya 10 … on 9 July, 2018




CRMP No. 442 of 2018

• The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon

—- Petitioner


• Bhagwati Prasad Arya S/o Latkhor Singh Arya Aged About 45 Years R/o
Tibal Colony Ward No.- 3, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

—- Respondent

For Petitioner/State : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, PL for the State/petitioner
For Respondent : Shri Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board


1. Heard.

2. The present leave to appeal with an application for condonation of delay has

been filed against the acquittal order dated 03.08.2017, passed in Special

ST No.20/16 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, a report was made by Omprakash

Nishad (PW-6), the father of the victim (PW-5) that on 22.03.2016 at 2 pm

he came to know that the accused has pressed the cheek of his daughter

and placed sickle on her neck. Having enquired, it was stated that on

11.03.2016 during a farewell party of Class-VIII, the accused Bhagwati

Prasad Arya, who was working as a peon in the school, with all bad

intention pressed the cheek of the daughter of the complainant and placed

sickle on her neck which was seen by others also. Therefore, after

investigation, different statements of witnesses were recorded and case

against the respondent was registered and the charges were framed under

Section 354 IPC for trying to outrage the modesty of four girls and under

Section 10 of the Protection of Childre from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

During the trial, the respondent abjured the guilt and the prosecution

examined their witnesses.

4. Learned State counsel referred to the statement given under Section 164

Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and submits that the trial Court ignored such

statements while deciding the case and acquitted the accused. She further

referred to the statement of one Shikha Ramteke, who is the Teacher and

would submit that she has stated that all the girls have complained that the

present accused tried to outrage the modesty of the girls. Thereby the

offence has been committed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the arguments

raised by learned State counsel and submits that the ground of appeal has

not been properly stated and submits that the order of the Court below is

well merited, which do not call for any interference and submits that the

leave to appeal cannot be granted.

6. Perused the record of the Court below. There are four victims, who have

been examined as PW1, PW3, PW4 PW5 all the witnesses are the

students of the school. Perusal of the statements of the witnesses would

show that they have not supported the case of the prosecution and only they

stated that the accused asked all the girls to go to their class and completely

disowned the incident. Reading the statements of the witnesses would

show that since they were scolded to go into the classes by the accused

they felt bad and the report was made. Specifically, the incident of pressing

the cheek has been denied. The other witness PW-2, who is also a student

is also hearsay witness.

7. Therefore, reading of the entire statements of the victims would show that

they have completely disowned the incident and even on cross-examination

it would show that they have turned hostile and nothing incriminating has

been brought to the surface in support of the prosecution rather the

statements of the witnesses show that while the students were out of class,

they were asked to go into the class, as such the report was made. Taking

into the statements and further the reasons stated in the application for

condonation of delay, I do not find that any sufficient reason exist coupled

with the fact that prosecution sans merit. The statements do not require any

re-appreciation as categorically statement against the prosecution exists. In

a result, I do not find any ground to condone the delay and grant leave to


8. This petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.


Goutam Bhaduri

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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