HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 77 0f 1989 CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE F CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Present- None for the applicant. Shri Anil Pandey, Advocate for the respondents No. l to 3. Shr‘i Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/respondent No. 4. AND Criminal Appeal No. 347/91 CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378111 OF THE CODE OF ‘ CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. Presentz- Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/appellant. Shri Anii Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. O APPLICANT Anila daughter of Ramautar, aged about 20 years, resident of Bouripara, PS Ambikapur, district Salguja, MP. VERSUS Non-applicants 1. Shekher Gupta son of K.N. Gupta, aged 30 years. 2. Anil Kumar son of Bhola Prasad, aged ’38 years. 3, Susheel Kumar son of Kunj Biharilal Gupta, aged 35 years, . A11 residents of Ambikapur, RS. and district Ambikapur M.P. 4. State of Madhya Pradesh. Applicant/Appellant State of Madhya Pradesh. VERSUS Non-applicants]respondents 1 . Shekher Gupta son of KN. Gupta, Accused aged 30 yeaxs. 2. Auil Kumar son of Rupa Bhola Prasad aged 38 years 3. Susheel Kumar son of KunJ Blhanlal Gupta aged 35 years, All residents of Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur Distn'ct Sarguja (M.P.). Sigge Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J. ‘ ORAL- JUDGEMENT (Passed on 20]07/ 20 10) 1. Since Criminal Revision No. 77/89 fi1€d at the instance of complainant] prosecutrix Anila and Criminal Appeal No. 347/ 91 $cd by the State are against the same judgment of acquittal dated 9/ 12/88 passed by Chief Judicial Magistxate, Saxguja in Criminal Case NQ. 1358/ 84, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in this revision and appeal is to the judgment of acquittal dated 9/ 12/ 88 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarguja in criminal case No. 1358/ 84 Where by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarguja has acquitted the respondents of the charge of Sections 341, 294, 354 d5 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Brief facts necessary for disposal of aforesaid revision 8a appeal is PWI prosecutn'x Anila was going to her Village along with her mother PW2 Sudeshwari While they are passing near the house of Barsati three x ' t " respondents met her in a Way. Respondent Shekher called her and when she did not reply the call of Shekher then respondents using iilthy language andvrespondent .Shekher assaulted her. She fell down and respondent Shekher threatened her for become unconscious. Again, ended her life.' She went to the police station Ambikapur and lodged First Information Report vide Ex. P-l. Broken piece of bangle were seized on the spot vide Ex. P—4. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P—S. She was sent for medical examination. She was examined by PW7 Dr. ‘ S.K. Adwani vide Ex. P—6. many as 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 11 of the Code of Crnal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the code’). After completion of the investigation, charg sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Mastrate, Sarguja. gi 5 In order to prove the guilt of the respondents prosecution examined as 7 itnesses. Respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Code where ey enied the circumstances appearing aat them and has taken the defence that mother of the prsecutn'x was willing to marry the prosecutrix with respondent Shekher which respondent {i Shekher and their relatives have refused then on account of such \; eninity prosecutrix has lodged false report against the respondents. Respondents have examined defence witness DWI K.N. Gupta 8n DW2 Balram Prasad Jaiswal. learned Chief 6. After adording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, "’ Judicial Magistrate Sarguja by giving the benefit of doubt acquitted the respondents of the charges. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 8. Judgment impugned and record of the Court below perused. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that evidence of PW1 Anila 85 PW2 her mother Sudeshwari .are sunicient for conviction of the respondents but Court below has wrongly acquitted the respondents of the charges. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel‘for the respondents submits that case was investigated on the basis of First Information Repot Ex. P-l > lodged by the prosecutrix. There is a material contraction in the First Information Report and the statements of the prosecutrix. On the basis 16 imi e . w th d gins o of such matarial contradiction, Coult below has rightly acquitted te h respondents. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I have examined the record and evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. As per Fixst Information Report Ex. P—l on the date of incident all the 3 respondents met the prosecutrix and out of 3 respondents, respondent Shekher called her which she denied reply then respondent Shekher after using hlthy language, assaulted her. She fell down and become unconscious. Respondent Shekher again threatened her. . Prosecution has examined prosecutxix PWI Anila. In her statement, she had deposed that all the 3 respondents came by motorcycle. They called her then they caught hold her, respondent Shekher on put his hand on her chest and they were forcefully trying to board her on motorcycle even they thrust cloth in her mouth and her mother was also shouting for help. She has further deposed that respondent Shekher slapped her then she become unconscious. Respondent Shekher put his foot upon her chest and abdomen. PW2 Sudeshwari has also substantially corroborated the evidence of PWI Anila. 13. On the other hand, DWI K.N. Gupta and DW2 Balram Prasad Jaiswal have deposed that PW2 Sudeshwari was trying to many her daughter PWI Anila with the respondent Shekher which was denied by respondent Shekher and his family members then they have lodged false report. Ex. P—l First Information Report reveals that this is a case of assault and threat committed by the respondents but as per statement of PWI Anila all the respondents have used criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of woman i.e. complainant and when . they failed then respondént Shekher has assaulted har. The evidence given by the prosecutrix, her mother and First Information Report lodged by the complainant are self-contradictmy in the material point. After considen'ng the evidence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarguja by giving the benefit of doubt has acquitted the respondents of the charges. The View taken by the Court below is neither illegal nor CITOI1€OIIS . 14. On close scrutiny of the evidence, I do not nnd any substance in the criminal revision and criminal appeal. Consequently, Criminal revision No. 77/89 filed on behalf of the private party i.e. complainant and Criminal Appeal No. 347/91 tiled on behalf of the State are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Sd/— T.P.Shar1na , Judge