Mere allegation of love affair won’t serve as a ground for acquittal: High Court Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CRA No. 8113 • Mukku @ Mukesh Yadav S o Shankar Lal Yadav Aged About 29 Years R o Lodhipara Sarkanda Near Gate of Agriculture Form P.S. Sarkanda Tah.Civil And Rev. Distt. Bilaspur C.G • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station A.J.K. Bilaspur C.G Appellant Respondent Shri Ravindra Sharma Advocate For State Respondent Shri Ghanshyam Patel G.A Hon ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 21.8.2013 passed in Special S.T. No.33 2012 by the Special Sessions Judge Bilaspur District Bilaspur wherein appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under U s 376 of the I.P.C R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.2 000 with default stipulations U s 450 of the I.P.C R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.2 000 with default stipulations Both sentences to run concurrently In the present case prosecutrix is a major lady having two children. Appellant herein is also a married person having two children According to the case of the prosecution on 26.08.2012 at around 9:30 PM when prosecutrix was sleeping in her house with her 8 years old child at that time appellant knocked the door of her house. When she opened the door appellant forcefully entered in her house and committed sexual intercourse with her. Immediately after the incident she narrated the entire story to Rahin KaiwartSavita Kenwat and Gautam. When husband of the prosecutrix came to the house she narrated the whole incident to him also. Thereafter in the night itself prosecutrix lodged a report vide Ex.P 1 in the police station Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Neelima Sharma PW 5). Her report is Ex.P 7. Statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed. To prove the guilt of the accused appellant prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. One defence witness namely Rajkumar Kashyapin her Court Statement has categorically deposed that on the date of incident she was sleeping in her house with her 8 years old child at that time appellant knocked the door and when she opened the door appellant forcefully entered inside the house and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. According to this witness immediately after the incident she narrated the entire incident to her neighbours namely Savita Gautam and Rahinbai. When her husband namely Puroshottam Singhreached home then she narrated the entire incident to him also. Smt. Rahin Kaiwarthas supported the above statement of the prosecutrix. Smt. Rahin Kaiwart has categorically stated that just after the alleged incident prosecutrix came to her and narrated the entire story to her. At that time prosecutrix was weeping Puroshottam Singhalso stated that when he reached house his wifenarrated the entire incident to him. In paragraph 11 and 12 of cross examination of the prosecutrix appellant has admitted that he entered to the house of the prosecutrix and made physical relationship with the prosecutrix. Though it was the defence of appellant that there was love relationship between him and prosecutrix and he made physical relationship with prosecutrix with her consent. But prosecutrix denied the submissions made by the appellant in this regard during her cross examination. Immediately after the the alleged incident prosecutrix narrated the incident to Rahin Kaiwartin weeping state. There is also no such fact available in this case which shows that husband of the prosecutrix or any other person has seen her in a compromising position then only she had made complaint Therefore no such substance is available in the statement of the appellant where he has stated that they were having love relationship and prosecutrix was the consenting party in the alleged act On a minute examination of the evidence on record it is clear that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant to hold him guilty. In my considered view the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant 9. With regard to the sentence of the appellant in the present case appellant is in custody since 27.08.2012 i.e. he has completed about more than 9 years in jail. Appellant is also a married person having two children. Further considering the family condition and detention period of the appellant and the fact that he is facing the lis since 2013 I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant the jail sentenced awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him 10. Consequently the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 11. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance (Arvind Singh Chandel Sd Judge

Summary: Mere allegation of love affair without supporting evidence where no person has seen the lady in a compromising position, won’t serve as a ground for acquittal to the perpetrator. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Arvind Singh Chandel adjudicating in the matter of Mukku @ Mukesh Yadav vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (CRIMINAL APPEAL No.812 of 2013) dealt with an issue of whether to grant acquittal to the Appellant. In the present case, the appellant preferred an appeal against the impugned judgement dated 21.08.2013 where he was convicted u/s 376 &amp; 450 IPC. The Appellant is a married person having two children and the prosecutrix is a major lady having two children. The prosecution around 9:30 asserted that when she was sleeping in her house with her 8-year-old child, the Appellant knocked on the door of her house and barged inside the house, and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecution. Immediately, after the incident, the prosecutrix immediately informed the PW-2 and also narrated the whole incident to her husband. The prosecution filed a report in the Police station and she was medically examined. Statements were recorded and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was formed. Statement of Appellant was also recorded and he pleaded that he was innocent and false implications have been made against him, but in the process of trial, he was convicted. The appellant in his appeal submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is a lack of evidence in support of the offences charged against him. Also, it was submitted that the court failed to consider the statement of defence witness, which stated that there was a love affair between the prosecutrix and appellant since last 6-7 year and contended that the circumstances clearly shows that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. After examining all the witnesses, the court held that” There is also no such fact available in this case which shows that husband of the prosecutrix or any other person has seen her in a compromising position, then only she had made a complaint. Therefore, no such substance is available in the statement of the appellant where he has stated that they were having a love relationship and the prosecutrix was the consenting party in the alleged act.”