Vesh Kumar Mandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.325 of 2018 Vesh Kumar Mandre, aged about 22 years, S/o Vijju alias Vijaylal Mandre, Caste Satnami, R/o Tilai, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, At present R/o Village Telsara, P.S. Chakarbhatha, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station City Kotwali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Applicant : Shri K.K. Khatri, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 27.6.2018 1.
With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Special Case No.93 of 2016, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure presented by Hiralal, father of the prosecutrix.
3.
I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 4.
On the basis of the report made by Hiralal, father of the prosecutrix, a charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act has been filed
against the accused/Applicant. During trial, on 8.3.2017, the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, has been examined and has also been duly cross-examined. She has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thereafter, on 10.3.2017, an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been submitted by Hiralal, father of the prosecutrix along with his affidavit on the ground that before recording of evidence of the prosecutrix, on 20.10.2016, uncle of the Applicant, namely, Shantanu called the prosecutrix and her parents to his house and threatened them that if they depose against his nephew, i.e., the Applicant, they will be killed and thrown away. Due to this fear, on 8.3.2017, the prosecutrix did not support the case of the prosecution. 5.
Vide order dated 27.12.2017, the Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by Hiralal, father of the prosecutrix. It was not signed by the prosecutrix nor her affidavit was annexed with it. As allegedly, the prosecutrix and her parents were threatened on 20.10.2016 and the prosecutrix was examined on 8.3.2017, but after 20.10.2016 and till 8.3.2017, no complaint regarding threatening to the prosecutrix and her parents was made against the Applicant. When the prosecutrix has been declared hostile, thereafter the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been submitted by the father of the prosecutrix not by the prosecutrix herself. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order allowing the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not in accordance with law.
6.
Resultantly, the instant revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.12.2017 is set aside.
7.
A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Gopal