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 9, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Videshi @ Khubu Sounra 7 Crref/2/2018 In ... on 31 January, 2020

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                           1



                                                              NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      CRMP No. 279 of 2020

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer,
      Police   Station    Jaijaipur,   District   Janjgir   Champa,
      Chhattisgarh.

                                                       ---- Applicant

                              Versus

    Videshi @ Khubu Sounra S/o Ghasiram Aged About 40
      Years R/o Village Nandeli, Police Station Jaijaipur, District
      Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

                                                   ---- Respondent



For Applicant-State      :-    Shri Rajendra Tripathi, PL


         Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
           Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
                       Order On Board

                                 By

                   Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

31/01/2020

1. It is pointed that there is 21 days delay in filing the instant Cr.M.P. On due consideration, delay is condoned.

2. The trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 506B, 427, 458, 307, 342, 336, 429 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 4, 5 of the Tonahi Pratadna 2 Nivaran Act, 2005.

3. Accused was sent for trial for criminally intimidating, abusing filthy language and committing mischief by fire after committing house trespass and restraining the victim in her house for attempting to commit her murder for the reason that the accused was suspecting that the victim was practicing witchcraft and has killed his son by engaging him in such practice.

4. There being no eye witness of the crime, case of prosecution was based on the sole testimony of the victim - Kirtan Bai, however, she was not examined in course of trial.

5. The trial Court has also found that the assessment of damage of the house and the property has not been proved due to non-examination of the victim.

6. Considering lack of evidence, particularly because of non-

examination of victim - Kirtan Bai, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal against acquittal.

7. Accordingly, the Cr.M.P. deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

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

Ayushi