Chattisgarh High Court
Mulender Ekka vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2025
1
CRA No. 383/2016
2025:CGHC:38473
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.06
18:27:05
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 383 of 2016
1 - Mulender Ekka S/o Bulkan Ekka Aged About 21 Years R/o
Kerakachhar Ghutra Para, Police Station - Pathalgaon, District -
Jashpur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Arakshi Kendra
Chowki Kotba, Police Station - Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur
Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Respondent/State
For Appellant : Shri Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
04.08.2025
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
2
CRA No. 383/2016
sentence dated 08.03.2016 passed by Learned Additional
Sessions Judge & Special Judge (under Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Kunkuri, District- Jashpur
(C.G.) in Special Case No. 49/2015, whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section Rigorous Imprisonment for 03
308 of the years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in
Indian Penal default of payment of fine
Code additional S.I for 120 days.
2. Brief facts of the case is that on 03.04.2015, the complainant
Smt. Sukita Toppo (P.W.-1) lodged a report at Police Station
Pathalgaon to the effect that there was a love affair between
the appellant and victim (P.W.-2) (daughter of complainant)
and being same caste, the complainant was not objected to
the appellant. On 31.03.2015, in night, after taking food, the
complainant and her husband were sleeping in courtyard of
house, at that time, appellant came into her house and went
to room of victim (P.W.-2). After sometime, the complainant
heard cries of victim, upon which, she came to her room and
saw that the victim was burning. The complainant called the
3
CRA No. 383/2016
other family members for help and the father of victim
covered her by blanket and then taken her to Community
Health Centre, Pathalgaon for treatment and on being asked,
she told that the appellant set her ablaze by pouring kerosene
on her.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
before the concerned Court. The prosecution examined as
many as 12 witnesses. Accused was also examined under
Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false
implication.
4. The learned trial Court after completing the trial not found the
appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376 and 307 of
Indian Penal Code and acquitted him. However, convicted and
sentenced him for offence under Section 308 IPC as
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this Judgment.
5. (a) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that finding
given by the learned trial Court against the appellant is
perverse and contrary to evidence on record. He submits that
the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant
only on the basis of testimony of interested witnesses,
however the independent prosecution witnesses have not
4
CRA No. 383/2016
supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that
learned trial Court failed to appreciate that when the
appellant refused for marry the victim, she became stressed
and she expressed to her parents that she don’t want to live,
therefore, it quite be possible that due to said stress, she
poured kerosene and set ablaze herself on fire. He further
submit that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the
statement of Rajanti Toppo (P.W.-11), who has stated that in
the earlier occasion on account of refusal for marriage, the
victim consumed poison and she could be saved after
treatment. Therefore it is clear that earlier also, the victim
tried to commit suicide, and the same cannot be overruled
that on the date of incident, she herself poured kerosene and
set fire on her.
(b) According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant for the alleged
offence, particularly when the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses are not corroborated with each other and there are
major contradiction and omission in the statement of
witnesses, which cannot be relied upon. Hence the impugned
conviction and sentence are liable to be set-aside.
5
CRA No. 383/2016
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the
argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant
and has submitted that there are sufficient evidence available
on record to hold that the appellant guilty for the alleged
offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in
passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the
appellant and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be
dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. The victim/injured (PW-2) stated that she knew the accused,
as they both liked each other. Referring to the incident that
took place in March 2015, she deposed that on the date of the
incident, the accused came to her house at around 9:00 p.m.
in an intoxicated state; poured kerosene on her, which was
kept in the house; and set her on fire, as a result of which, she
sustained burn injuries. Upon hearing her cries, her parents
rushed and extinguished the fire by using a blanket.
Thereafter, they took her to Pathalgaon Hospital, where she
6
CRA No. 383/2016
got treatment for eight days before returning home after
recovery.
9. Mother of the Victim (PW-1) stated that she recognized the
accused, Mulender Ekka, as he was from her village. She
further stated that victim is her daughter and was 18 years old
at the time. Although she could not recall the exact date of the
incident, she stated that on the night of the occurrence, she
and her husband were sleeping outside the house, while
Sandhya was sleeping in another room. At around 9:00 p.m.,
they heard Sandhya shouting that she was being burnt. Upon
hearing her cries, they immediately rushed to her room and
saw that Sandhya was on fire. They then covered her with a
blanket and extinguished the flames. At the time of the
incident, her husband, her sister-in-law, her sister-in-law’s
daughter Rajanti, and another female relative were present.
The accused, Mulender Ekka, was seen standing inside
Sandhya’s room. When they asked Sandhya who had set her
on fire, she told them that the accused, Mulender, had poured
kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Following this, Sandhya
was taken by car to Pathalgaon Hospital, where she was
admitted and treated for about a week before returning home
7
CRA No. 383/2016
after recovery. The witness added that on the third day after
the incident, she lodged a First Information Report (Ex. P/1) at
the Pathalgaon Police Station.
10. Father of the victim (PW-4) has stated that he recognized the
accused, as he belonged to his village. He further stated that
victim is his daughter. On the date of the incident, he and his
wife were sleeping in the house, while their daughter, was
sleeping in a room. He mentioned that they did not see when
the accused entered the house. Upon hearing Sandhya
scream, they rushed to her room and saw that she was
engulfed in flames. At that moment, the accused was standing
in front of her. He then extinguished the fire with a blanket. He
further deposed that when he asked his daughter what had
happened, she told him that the accused had poured
kerosene on her body and set her on fire. Thereafter, she was
taken to the Government Hospital in Pathalgaon for
treatment. She remained there for six days and recovered.
Sister in law (PW3) has turned hostile.
11. Medical Officer Dr. Sandhyarani Toppo (PW-6) stated that the
victim had been admitted to CHC Pathalgaon on 31.03.2015
due to burn injuries. She further stated that the victim was
8
CRA No. 383/2016
brought to her on 07.04.2015 at around 1:45 p.m. for medical
examination. Upon examination, the following injuries were
observed:
“The victim’s left arm was burnt from shoulder to wrist;
the right arm was burnt from elbow to shoulder;
approximately one-third of her back, both sides of her
neck and back, as well as both ears, were also burnt.
The burns had caused full-thickness damage to the
skin.”
Dr. Toppo opined that she had sustained 36% burn injuries,
which were of a serious nature, in this regard she issued a
medical report (Ex. P/7)
12. Thus from the evidence of the victim (PW-2), Mother (PW-1),
Father (PW-4) and Dr. Sandhya Rani Toppo (PW-6), it is crystal
clear that, that it is the accused/appellant who had poured
kerosene over the body of victim and set her on fire, as a
result of which she sustained the following injuries: left arm
was burnt from shoulder to wrist; the right arm was burnt
from elbow to shoulder; approximately one-third of her back,
both sides of her neck and back, as well as both ears, were
9
CRA No. 383/2016
also burnt. The burns had caused full-thickness damage to the
skin.
13. The question for consideration would be, whether the trial
court was justified in holding the appellant guilty under
Section 308 of IPC.?
At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 308 of
the IPC which states as under: –
Section 308 of IPC: Attempt to commit culpable homicide
“Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he
by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with
both.”
14. Thus taking a cumulative note of the medical evidence
collected by the prosecution; looking to the nature of the
crime and severity of the injuries, which are even life
threatening and also keeping in the mind the medical report
10
CRA No. 383/2016
(Ex.P/7), it will not be apt to interfere with a well reasoned
judgment and order passed by learned trial court, as it may
lead to erosion of confidence of public in judicial system.
15. In view of the above, the judgment dated 08.03.2016 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge
(under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012)
Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 49/2015,
whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated
in Para 1 above, is hereby affirmed.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
17. The appellant is stated to be in bail His bail bonds are
cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be
taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of
sentence. he is at liberty to assail the present judgment
passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court
Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee.
18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original
11
CRA No. 383/2016
record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for
information and necessary action. Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Shoaib/Gowri