State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sitaram Tandan 23 Fa/17/2012 Sharda ... on 24 July, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 71]

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sitaram Tandan 23 Fa/17/2012 Sharda ... on 24 July, 2019

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                    1
                                                    CRMP No.1333 of 2019

                                                                   NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         CRMP No. 1333 of 2019

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Outpost Birejhar,
        Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ---- Petitioner

                                 Versus

     1. Sitaram Tandan S/o Sunit Ram Tandan Aged About 28 Years
        R/o Village Kotgaon, Police Outpost Birejhar , Police Station
        Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

                                                      ---- Respondent



For Petitioner/State            Shri Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer


                  Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, J.

Order on Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

24-7-2019 I.A.No.1

1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of.

2 CRMP No.1333 of 2019

4. Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The prosecutrix, a married lady, aged about 50 years, happens to be the relative of the accused. On the date of incident she was proceeding on foot to her village and met the accused midway when he stopped his motorcycle and offered lift to the prosecutrix. As per the prosecution, instead of taking the prosecutrix to her residence she was taken to three different villages and the accused demanded sexual favour twice and on the third occasion the accused inserted his right hand fingers in the private parts of the prosecutrix.

6. PW-10 Dr. Saroj Diwan has found that the prosecutirx was complaining of pain in the P/V examination, but she has not found any injury either external or internal over the private parts of the prosecutrix.

7. There being delay of two days in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and for the fact that other witnesses are hearsay the trial Court has found that it would not be safe to convict the accused on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix.

8. From the evidence available on record two views may be possible but it is also settled that when two views are possible and the view taken by the trial Court is one such possible view, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under acquittal appeal is not entitled to unsettled the view of the trial Court.

9. Considering the nature of evidence available on record, it is manifest that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.

3 CRMP No.1333 of 2019

There is no substance in this application seeking leave to appeal.

10. In the result, the appeal, sans merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

                 Sd/-                                  Sd/-


        (Prashant Kumar Mishra)               (Gautam Chourdiya)
                Judge                                Judge


Gowri

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court