State of Chhattisgarh vs Vasudeo Usendi

Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.12/2021, whereby, the respondent- Vasudeo Usendi has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 451, 354, 506 Part-II, 323(3 times) of IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

It is alleged by the prosecution that on 02.01.2021 around 7.30 pm at village- Dumartola, Police Station- Mohla of District Rajnandgaon, the respondent- Vasudeo Usendi entered illegally the house of the prosecutrix when she was cooking and tried to outrage her modesty and assaulted her and, alleged further that when her mother, brother and aunt tried to intervene the matter, the respondent assaulted them also and threatened her to kill. On account of the alleged incident, she was examined medically by Dr. Varsha Thakur (PW-4), while her mother and aunt were examined by Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-5) and, after recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, that by completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court, where, the charge has been framed as mentioned herein-above, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried.

The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since there are material disparities in the statements of the prosecutrix and her relatives, therefore, it cannot be said that the alleged incident was occurred on the said fateful day, as was alleged by the prosecutrix in her report (Ex.P-1) and, accordingly, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime is, apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch, as the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother (PW-7), brother (PW-3) and aunt (PW-2), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him as such.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while inviting attention towards the written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by the prosecutrix and her (PW-1) statement recorded before the Court and also inviting attention towards the statement of her mother (PW-7), brother (PW-3) and aunt (PW-2), submits that since there are material disparities in their statements, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record.

From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 03.01.2021 before the Police Station-Mohla of District Rajnandgaon, wherein, it was alleged that on 02.01.2021 around 7.30 pm, the respondent entered into her house and tried to outrage her modesty and while assaulting her, has threatened to kill and it reveals further from her said report that the alleged incident was intervened by her aunt, who was also assaulted by him. Although, it was alleged by her as such, but in her (PW-1) evidence, it was, however, stated that on the said fateful day, the respondent entered into her house and tried to drag her and when she shouted, her mother and brother came for her rescue and her aunt also came, but the said fact was, however, not revealed from her alleged report (Ex.P-1), nor was revealed from her statement (Ex.P-13) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Further, though, it was revealed from her testimony that when she was being outraged by the respondent, her mother and brother came for rescue, but the brother (PW-3) of her was, in fact, in the Market on the said day and when he returned, then only, he was informed by his sister regarding the alleged incident, as revealed from para 6 of his cross-examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that the brother has intervened the matter as was stated by his sister, the prosecutrix, else the said fact would have been reflected from her alleged report (Ex.P-1).

Mother of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-7 and, it reveals from her testimony that when her daughter was being outraged by the respondent, she tried to intervene the matter and at that particular time, she and her son was assaulted by him with hands and fists. She has, however, not stated that when her daughter was being outraged by the respondent, the alleged incident was intercepted by the aunt. Even otherwise, the alleged quarrel was, in fact, already over when she reached the spot as revealed from para 3 of her cross-examination. Her statement is, therefore, neither found to be trustworthy, nor the alleged version of her daughter made in the alleged report (Ex.P-1) was found to be supported by her.

That apart, it appears from a perusal of the statement of her aunt (PW-2) that she was at her home on the said fateful day, and reached the prosecutrix’s house after hearing her noise and has seen the respondent pressing the neck of her and the alleged incident was being intervened by her mother and brother, but the alleged fact was, however, not found to be revealed from the report (Ex.P-1) lodged by the prosecutrix.

What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid materials that when the alleged incident was occurred, her aunt alone, had come for her rescue and, similar was of her version revealed from her statement (Ex.P-13) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but has deposed contrary and rather exaggerating the story by saying that she was rescued by her mother and brother and, even her brother was not at home and was informed by his sister regarding the alleged incident when he returned home and, the mother of her has even not seen the alleged incident as she reached the spot after the quarrel was over.

Pertinently, to be noted here further as revealed from their medical reports (Exs.P-7, P-8 and P-9) that Dr. Varsha Thakur (PW-4) and Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-5), who examined them have, however, not seen any kind of injuries on their bodies. The evidence of the prosecutrix and her relatives was, thus, even not found to be corroborated by the medical reports, so as to hold that the respondent, in any manner, was involved for the commission of the alleged crime.

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.