Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY S.AGRAWAL, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the In-charge, Police Station Sitapur, Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Thurra @ Sukhnath, S/o. Luk Sai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquittal appeal involves scrutiny of prosecution's evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. state contests trial court's conclusions on evidential grounds. (Para 7) |
| 3. evidence indicates no forcible actions; prosecutrix acted willingly. (Para 10 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Surguja (Ambikapur), C.G. in Sessions Trial No.230/2012, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondent No.1- Thurra @ Sukhnath of the charge under Sections 342 , 366 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and respondent No.2- Laxman Korva of the charge under Section 366 (d) of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.04.2012, while prosecutrix (PW-1) was returning home from the house of one Ramlal, on way, respondent No.1-Thurra @ Sukhnath stopped her, forcibly took her inside the house of Ramlal, locked the door from inside and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she raised cries for help, respondent No.1-Thurra @ Sukhnath gagged her mouth. Thereafter, on the same day, at about 7:00 pm, respondent
The presumption of innocence remains strong unless compelling evidence demonstrates otherwise, particularly in cases of acquittal.
The credibility of a prosecutrix's statement is crucial for conviction; inconsistencies and lack of corroboration can lead to acquittal.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds that the only conclusion possible from the evidence is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.
Testimony of minor victim can be the basis for conviction despite medical evidence not supporting the claim.
The importance of a reasonable assessment of evidence and the need for concrete details and consistency in the testimony of the prosecutrix to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
