Chattisgarh High Court
Piyush Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:17809-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1294 of 2024
1 - Piyush Tiwari S/o Mr. Basant Tiwari, Aged About 34 Years R/o H. No. 07,
New Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station City
Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.) ..Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Sharma along with Mr. M.L.
Saket and Mr. Raza Ali, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge.
21.04.2025
Proceedings of this case have been taken through video conferencing.
1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel along with Mr. M.L. Saket
and Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.
Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the
respondent/State.
2
2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 14-A(1) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 08.05.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge
(Atrocities) Raipur C.G.) in Special Case No. 6/2021, whereby the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Rigorous Imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’)
Code (for short, ‘IPC‘) for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default of payment of fine, 15 days R.I.
more.
Section 506-II of the IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default of payment of fine, 15 days R.I.
Section 376(2)(K) R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in
default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I.
Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in
default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I.
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST R.I. for life years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I.
All the sentences run concurrently
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the prosecutrix is a grown up lady
aged about 30 years old. Prior to marriage of the prosecutrix with Atul
Rathore, the appellant and the prosecutrix were in relationship. It is
alleged that after the marriage, the appellant was pressurizing the
prosecutrix to continue the relationship which the prosecutrix refused to
do so. On this, the appellant lodged a complaint bearing FIR No.
3
107/2019 at police station Moudhapara against the prosecutrix and her
family members. In such complaint, the prosecutrix, her husband, father,
mother and one Sweta got arrested. Thereafter, the prosecutrix also made
a complaint against the appellant and his brother namely Rahul Tiwari. On
being known about registration of complaint, the appellant assured the
prosecutrix that he is ready to withdraw his complaint. Both the parties got
agreed for compromise. After all this, the appellant again started to
threaten the prosecutrix to viral her photographs and tried to compel the
prosecutrix to get divorce from her husband. On 25/10/2019, the
appellant with bad intention, by saying to the prosecutrix that he will
withdraw his report, called her at IVY Hotel, Raipur and booked a room on
the name of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the appellant gave the prosecutrix
an intoxicated cold-drink and committed rape with her. On 03.01.2022, a
written complaint has been made by the prosecutrix before the
respondent police Station and on that basis FIR has been registered
under Section 376, 384, 420 of IPC.
4. Statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were
recorded by the police. After completing the entire investigation, charge-
sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur
(C.G.) for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 384,
420, 341 of IPC and Section 3(2)(k) of SC/ST Act.
5. Learned trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable
under Sections 342, 506-II, 376(2)(k)(n), 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(p),
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act read over and explained to the accused, who
abjured his guilt.
4
6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as
many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents in support of case of
the prosecution. The appellant has neither examined any witness in his
defence nor exhibited any document.
7. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing
against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely
implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has
exhibited any document.
8. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence
produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the
appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 02 of this
judgment. Hence this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecutrix
being major aged about 30 years was consenting party and no ingredients
of Section 376(2)(k) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
act available in the evidence brought out by the prosecution. Learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that the allegation is that the
prosecutrix has been taken to V.Y. Hotel and confined their, whereas hotel
staff has disclosed the fact that the prosecutrix has booked the room in
her name and appellant and further the prosecutrix remained their along
with her phone and even she has not made any complaint to hotel staff
and not also not made any complaint to police in this regard. In the
statement of witnesses that the prosecutrix stayed in the said hotel for few
days along with her family members. He further submit that the entire
5
case reflects that the prosecutrix is major and her relationship is
consensual. Further after 3-4 months, the prosecutrix has made complaint
about the said incidence, which destroyed the credibility of her testimony.
The evidence of the victim does not inspire the confidence and therefore
no offences under IPC and SC/ST Act are made out against the appellant
and he is entitled for acquittal. In support of this contention, learned
counsel for the appellant relief upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in
AIROnline 2024 SC 764.
10. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant and have
submitted that considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellant which is justified and the appeal of
the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.
12. On perusal of the records, it is alleged that prior to marriage of the
prosecutrix with Atul Rathore, the appellant and the prosecutrix were in
relationship. It is alleged that after the marriage, the appellant was
pressurizing the prosecutrix to continue the relationship which the
prosecutrix refused to do so. On this, the appellant lodged a complaint
bearing FIR No. 107/2019 at police station Moudhapara against the
prosecutrix and her family members. In such complaint, the prosecutrix,
her husband, father, mother and one Sweta got arrested. Thereafter, the
prosecutrix also made a complaint against the appellant and his brother
6
namely Rahul Tiwari. On being known about registration of complaint, the
appellant assured the prosecutrix that he is ready to withdraw his
complaint. Both the parties got agreed for compromise. After all this, the
appellant again started to threaten the prosecutrix to viral her photographs
and tried to compel the prosecutrix to get divorce from her husband. On
25/10/2019, the appellant with bad intention, by saying to the prosecutrix
that he will withdraw his report, called her at IVY Hotel, Raipur and
booked a room on the name of the prosecutrix
13. Firstly, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under
Sections 342, 506-II, 376(2)(k) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST Act . In order to prove the offence, the victim has been examined
as PW-9.
14. The victim (PW-9), aged about 30 years in the examination before
the Court, has stated that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant had
committed sexual intercourse with her. In the cross-examination, she has
clearly sated that she is close to the appellant as they were known to each
other and were also known to each other’s caste. In her cross-
examination, she has also stated that she has boarded a bus outside
Bhilai to go to Bilaspur for staying in IVF hotel. After reaching near
Bilaspur, the accused stopped her, abused her and forcibly pulled her by
her hand and tried to make her sit in the car, however at that time she did
not call or raise any alarm for any help to save her. She admitted the fact
that she had stayed in IVF hotel earlier also where the incident took place
and she also admitted that after the incident, her mother and her brother
came and also stayed there and she and her family members have not
7
given any information to the hotel staff regarding the incident. In her cross-
examination, she denied the fact that on 25.10.2019 she became
unconscious due to intoxicating substance given her in hotel IVF and
again said that she was feeling unconscious like intoxication. She also
admitted the fact that in the written report, she has not mentioned about
intoxication.
15. PW-1 who is manager in IVF Hotel has stated in his statement that
the prosecutrix came to out hotel and booked a room in her name and in
the name of the accused/appellant. In cross-examination, he stated that
when the prosecutrix came to book the hotel, the accused/appellant was
not accompany with her and she had submitted the aadhaar card of the
accused. He also admitted that prosecutrix did not complaint against the
appellant.
16. PW-4, the Doctor who has medically examined the victim have not
found any external injury on her body and no definite opinion could be
given with regard to any forceful sexual intercourse, even the MLC report
was found to be negative.
17. On going through the evidence of the prosecutrix, that on 25.10.2019,
accused/appellant brought the prosecutrix to IVF Hotel and confined there
and committed forceful intercourse, whereas, hotel staff of said hotel
disclosed the fact that the prosecutrix has booked the room in her name
and the appellant and she remained there along with her phone and has
not complaint to hotel staff or to police with the regard to the said
allegation. On 03.01.2020, for the first time, the prosecutrix stated about
the said alleged incident of hotel and filed a complaint. Further, the
8
prosecutrix has stated in her examination that the appellant used to beat
himself with the belt and due to which the prosecutrix got ready to make
physical relationship, therefore the said version shows that there is no
such criminal intimidation. Prior to 25.10.2019, the prosecutrix alleged
that the appellant used to established physical relationship on the false
pretext of marriage and but the prosecutrix admitted the fact that they
were in relationship since from 2017 and came to know about the marital
status of the appellant but no complaint has been made and further
admitted the fact that the appellant and prosecutrix were in live-in-
relationship and made physical relationship and also visited hotels, clubs
and various other places, without raising any alarm.
18. On perusal of the evidence, it appears that the prosecutrix being
major woman and in view of her statement, she was a consenting party
and the incident is 2 months prior to the date of complaint lodged by her.
The Delay in lodging of the FIR has also not been explained by the
prosecution, moreover, there is no evidence that she has raised any alarm
or has shouted when she was allegedly subjected to forceful sexual
intercourse by the appellant. She voluntarily accompanied with the
appellant and she has not made any complaint to any of the hotel staff
members while she was with the appellant. From the close scrutiny of the
evidence makes it clear that the victim neither was taken by force nor she
was kidnapped by the appellant, she herself accompany with the
appellant on her own will and consent. Further the appellant has not
committed any forceful sexual intercourse with her without her will or
consent and she engaged in making physical relation with the appellant
consensually.
9
19. The version of the victim commands great respect and
acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt
in the mind of the Court on the veracity of the victim’s evidence, then it will
not be safe to rely on the said version of the victim. The law is well settled
that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of
sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which
is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though
the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her
statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The
prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant
beyond any reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in
the instant case.
20. Considering the entire evidence available on record, the evidence
with regard to the conduct of the victim, her evidence, absence of any
injury over her body as also the evidence that she was in love affair with
the appellant, we are of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove
that on the date of incident the victim has not been taken by force and she
herself accompanied with him and made physical relation with him
consensually, therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of
the case, the offences under Sections 342, 506-II, 376(2)(k) and 376(2)
(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act are not made out against the
appellant.
21. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.05.2024 is set aside. The
appellant stands acquitted from all the charges. The appellant is reported
10
to be in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
22. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC (now
Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the
appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form
No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned
which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an
undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the
instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of
notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
23. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent
back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and
necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Jyoti
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2025.04.24
16:26:44
+0530
[ad_1]
Source link