Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Teepu Sultan Ali on 11 January, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 108 of 2018
State of Chhatisgarh through District Magistrate Korba,
District Korba (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Teepu Sultan Ali, aged about 22 years, S/o Liymat Ali
2. Kishanlal, aged about 21 years, S/o Late Panchram
3. Aabid Hussain, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Wajid
Hussain
All r/o Falwaripara, Chhuri, Katghora, District Korba CG
---- Respondents
For petitioner/State : Ms. Smita Jha, PL
For Respondents : Shri Vikash Pandey Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order On Board
11/01/2022
Heard on admission.
2 This petition has been filed under Section 378 (3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against the judgment impugned dated 28.03.2017 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge in Special Sessions Case No. 44/2015 acquitting the respondents/accused of the charge under Sections 354, 323 IPC and 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case put forth by the prosecution in short is that on 9.9.2015 at about 2 PM one Krishna Kumar had caught hold of the hands of the prosecutrix in the verandah of the 2 Government Higher Secondary School, Chhuri with an intention to outrage her modesty, which ended up in scuffle between the two. Allegedly, said Krishna Kumar had then called his sister Urmila and brother-in-law Johan to the school where ultimately the prosecutrix was scolded by the teacher and a compromise was arrived at. It is alleged that after the prosecutrix reached home, the respondents/accused went to her and putting her under threat of her photographs being displayed on television in order to defame her. After the prosecutrix informed her parents about the incident, written report was made by her to the police on 11.09.2015 based on which FIR Ex. P-3 was registered against the respondents/accused for the offences u/s 354, 323 IPC and 8 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, challan was also filed against them under the same sections followed by framing of charge accordingly.
4. In order to prove the complicity of the respondents/accused in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.
5. After hearing the parties, the Court below acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them. Hence this petition by the State seeking leave to appeal.
6. Counsel for the petitioner/State attacking the judgment 3 of acquittal submits that prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident the respondents/accused came to her house with a letter and asked her to copy the same in her own handwriting and that when she did not agree for the same, accused Aabid made a cut mark on her little finger. She then copied the said letter brought by Aabid by writing half with blood and the remaining with pen. According to him, the prosecutrix has further stated that on her way to school, accused Teepu used to stalk her, catch hold of her hand by singing and whistling by looking at her. Accused Teepu had also threatened her to defame her by showing her photographs on television and pasting the poster everywhere. All these narrations of the prosecutrix, according to the State counsel, are sufficient for the conviction of the respondents/accused for the offence registered by the police, but the Court below has erroneously acquitted them of the same, which is wholly illegal and liable to be set aside.
7. Counsel for the respondents/accused however supports the judgment impugned being based due appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly that of the prosecutrix (PW-3), and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below need no interference by this Court.
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9. Against accused Kishan, the prosecutrix has not stated anything. She has rather stated that he did nothing with her. 4
As regards other two namely Teepu Sultan and Aabid Hussain, if the overall evidence of the prosecutrix is seen, it transpires that they were on inimical terms with her much prior to the incident alleged, and this could be one of the reasons for roping them in a false case. Since the parents came to know about the incident through the prosecutrix and did not see it with their own eyes, their testimony loses its significance, particularly when the prosecutrix herself has not specifically stated as to before how many days of the school incident with Krishna Kumar, the accused Teepu and Aabid had made her write the letter and when Teepu Sultan had caught hold of her hand. The Court below thus does not appear to have gone wrong in any manner in awarding acquittal to the respondents/accused, and therefore, the findings recorded by him cannot be interfered with in this petition. Even otherwise, the settled legal position in such cases is that if two views can be possible from the material available on record, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred.
10. In aforesaid view of the matter, leave to appeal sought for by the State is hereby refused and the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Jyotishi