Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Chandrabali Yadav 7 Crmp/922/2020 ... on 16 July, 2020

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                    1
                                                          CRMP No. 920 of 2020


                                                                      NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       CRMP No. 920 of 2020

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
     Station- AJAK, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh

                                                               ---- Applicant

                                Versus

    Chandrabali Yadav S/o Udaynath Aged About 57 Years R/o
     Village Kesara, Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja,
     Chhattisgarh

                                                        ---- Respondent



For Applicant-State            :-       Mr. K.K. Singh, G.A.




             Proceedings through Video Conferencing

          Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra &
             Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya

                           Order On Board

                                    By

                      Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

16/07/2020

1. On due consideration delay of 119 days in filing of the instant Cr.M.P. is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No. 01/2020, application for condonation of delay occurred in filing of the Cr.M.P. is allowed.

2. The trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 376(2)(ढ), 506( Part - II), 313 of the I.P.C. and Section 2 CRMP No. 920 of 2020 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Prosecutrix lodged FIR on 25.04.2016 alleging that when she was 15 years old in the year 2002, the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse on promise to marry and thereafter the relationship continue till 2016, however, the accused refused to keep her as his wife.

4. Bare perusal of her deposition would reveal that the prosecutrix lived with the accused for about 15-16 years as his wife and in the report also she referred father of the accused as father-in-law. Thus, there is delay of 14 years in lodging the FIR and moreover despite having attained majority she remained quiet for atleast 12-13 years. In para 11 of her deposition she admits that the accused was maintaining her till 2016 but thereafter refused to maintain her. It seems that dispute arose when the accused refused to maintain her. In view of the statement of the prosecutrix, the necessary ingredients constituting offence of rape is not established.

5. No case for grant of leave to appeal is made out. Accordingly, the Cr.M.P. is dismissed.

                SD/-                                         SD/-
         (Prashant Kumar Mishra)                     (Gautam Chourdiya)
               Judge                                       Judge

Ayushi