State Of Chhattisgarh v. Ghasiya @ Gopaldas
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR
(C.G.) CR.M.P. N0. f-63/2014 ACQUITTAL APPEAL No._/ 2014 APPELLANT/ APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station - Kotwali, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED Ghasiya @ Gopaldas, S/o - Nathudas, Aged about - 30 years, R/o - Surveshwarinagar Kotraroad, Thana - Kotwali, District - Raigarh [CG] Revenue Dist. Raigarh P.S. Kotwali, CrimeNo. 876/10^ s.
,,\6^^ y-^yy APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVB?<fffAPPfi"AL UNDER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRI^^AL PROCEDRUE,
'l f^ HIGBi COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BIIASPITO <7^ ^v Cr.M.P. N0. 163 OF 3014 '•• *^*^ * ft.'rw State of Chhattisgarh Ghasiya @ Gopaldas Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Govt. Advocate, for AppeUant-State. (Smgle Bench ; Hon'ble Mr. P. Sam Koshy, J.] (1) Heard on I.A.
No.01/2014 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the iastant petition whlch is baned by UmitaMon of37 days.
(2) On due consideration, since sufficient cau^ has been explained by the appellant-State in not filing the present petitton within the stipulated tim.e, I.A. No.01/2014 is allowed and the delay in fiUng of the petition is hereby condoned.
Also heard on the applicatlon for grant of leaveto appeal. - By way of instant petition, the appellant-State has sought FOF a leave to appeal against the judgement dated 30.9.2013 (Mssed by Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Raigarh, in Criinlnal Case No.35/2013.
Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution story are ttiat on 29.11.2010 at around 3.30 pm, the respondent-a.ccused.wentto Saraswati Gyaii Mandir School sltuated at Ralgarh and entered -the dass roQm^%here the prosecutrix (PW-3) was checking the notebooks of the students. After entering the class room with an intention to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix (PW-3), the respondent had caught hold of the hand of the proseeutrix (PW-3) and slapped her and also abused her using Qlthy language. =^^i®S^^^^^^%;
-2- •y Therefore, the prosecutrix (PW-3) ha-d lodged a-jcomplamt with the pollce Tegaidtag the mcident, on the basls of which the-said crimlnal case was registered agalnst the respOHdent-accused for having commltted the offences punlshable under Sections 294,. 323, 354 of IPC.
(6) After concluslon of the trial, the Court below by impugned judgement dated 30.9.2013 reached to the conctusioa that the version of the prosecutrix (FW-3) has not been supported by any Independent witness and, therefore, her version appears to be Sbubtful.
The reasonlng given by the Court below is that the incident had happened in a class room while the prosecutrix (PW-3), waschecklng the note-books of the sfrudents and in splte of the victim being in the class room along with the students, the prosecution has not been able to produce any witness in respect of the version of the prosecutrix (FW-3) so as to substaadate the complaint filed by her (FW-3).
The other reasoning which the Court below has g^ven also is the fact that from. the evidence that have come before the Court below, it is leamt that there was an enmlty between the two families i.e. between the family of the victim (PW-3) auid the famity of the respondent-accused. Therefore, there is a posslbility that because of the emnity, the victim might have impllcated tfae respondent in the instant matter.
Further, on perusal of the reasoning glven by the Court below in para 11 of the impugned judgement, it is evldent that m the statements made by PW-6 B.L. Prajapati, PW-1 Khagesh Tiwari and PW-5 Tarun Tiwari, all of them have submitted befpre the Court bdow that they had come to kaow about the mcident on phone on bdng informed by the vlctim (PW-3). This also establishes the fact that there was no direct evldence to the mcident which the prosecution has brought before the Court below.
-:-;.^-:..-3na^5-siac5:A.'S5B"-Sa5;,;.'.'-:-'.a .. '^
-3- (tO) Taking all these facts and circijm.staiiees o£.the,case intA consideration, the Court below gving the beneflt ofdoubt to the respondent-accused, has acquitted him from.
the oEEence punishable under Sectlons 294, 323, 354 of IPC.
(11) Pursuant to the aforesald reasonin^ given by the Court below, I do not Fmd any Infirmity in the impugaed judgeraentpassed by the Court below nor can be the same is said to be without any basls.
(12) For the foregolng reasons, the instant pedtion is dismissed. Consequently, leave to appeal as prayed for 1s rejected; teky;
Sd/- p.SamKoshy Judge