1 2025:CGHC:30851-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.275 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Jashpur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1. Vijay Kujur S/o Suleman Kujur Aged About 40 Years R/o Dhundhrudand Jamtoli, Chowki Doukada, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Madan Kumar Lakda, S/o Jay Masih Lakda Aged About 41 Years R/o Namna Kala, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) --- Respondent(s) ACQA No. 590 of 2019 Manjula Kujur W/o Vijay Kujur Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Doodhrudand, (Pakritoli), Police Outpost - Dokda, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur (CG) Appellant/Complainant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kansabel District Jashpur (CG) 2 - Vijay Kujur S/o Sulemaan Kujur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Doodhrudand, Jaamtoli, Police Station Kansabel District Jashpur, (CG) 3 - Madan Kumar Lakda S/o Jaimasih Lakda, Aged About 41 Years R/o Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 For Acquittal Appeal No.275 of 2017 For Appellant : Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate For Acquittal Appeal No.590 of 2019 For Appellant : None For Respondent No.1 : Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 3: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 07/07/2025 1) Since both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.108/2015, whereby, the respondent No.1-Vijay Kujur has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 324/34, 506 Part-II, 376-B and 376-D of IPC, while respondent No.2-Madan Kumar Lakda under Sections 324/34, 506 Part-II and 376-D of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2014, a report (Ex.P-6) and (Ex.P-17) was lodged by the brother of the prosecutrix before the concerned Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with the respondent No.1 Vijay Kujur on 02.02.1999 and her husband has some doubt regarding the character of his sister, therefore, they are living 3 separately in the same house in different rooms. It is alleged further that on the previous day, i.e. on 20.09.2014, when his sister was alone in her room at about 10.30 P.M., the respondent No.1-Vijay Kujur (husband of his sister) entered into the room and after tying her hands, committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened to kill and also assaulted with the aid of axe, owing to which, she received injuries upon her shoulder, chest and back of her head and blood was oozing from her body. She was thereafter admitted into the Holycross Hospital at Kunkuri and was treated by Dr. Vinod Lakda (PW-4), who in turn, has referred to the Orthopedics for her better treatment and was thereafter, examined by Dr. S. Toppo (PW- 8), who has submitted his MLC report (Ex.P-13), where he was unable to give any definite opinion regarding the injuries sustained by her. The statement of her (prosecutrix) was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 14.11.2014 vide Ex.P-26 and after completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, 376-B and 376 of IPC in connection with Crime No.117/2014 and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, and after considering the materials available on record, the charge was framed against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34, 506 Part-II, 376-B and 376-D of IPC, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the offence mentioned herein- above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeals have been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State, in Acquittal Appeal No.275/2017, submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecutrix (PW-1), her neighbour Smt. Vijayanti Tigga (PW-3), brother of her (PW-5) have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents as such, while none was appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant in Acquittal Appeal No.590 of 2019. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents in Acquittal Appeal No.275 of 2017 has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned trial Court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 5 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that respondent No.1-Vijay Kujur, who is the husband of the prosecutrix and respondent No.2- Madan Kumar Lakda, who was the husband of her (prosecutrix’s) sister-in-law, have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34, 506 Part-II, 376-B and 376-D of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 20.09.2014 at 10.30 PM, when the prosecutrix was alone at her room. According to the prosecution, the respondents entered into her room on the said fateful day, i.e. on 20.09.2014 at 10.30 PM and while tying her hands, committed sexual intercourse with her and assaulted with the aid of axe. 9) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-1, has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent No.1-Vijay Kujur, but, since the husband of her sister-in-law was also living with her, therefore, her husband oftenly used to quarrel with her and has given a separate room, where she was living along with the children and, deposed further that on 20.09.2014, he and husband of her sister-in-law entered into her room and have tied her hands and committed sexual intercourse with her and, both have assaulted her with the aid of axe, owing to which, she sustained certain injuries near her ear, shoulder and back portion of her body and after that, they fled away from the spot. She deposed further that she informed regarding the alleged incident to one Smt. Vijayanti Tigga (PW-3), her neighbour, on her mobile phone that she was assaulted, owing 6 to which, she came and admitted her into the Holycross hospital at Kunkuri. 10) Smt. Vijayanti Tigga (PW-3), has stated that she was informed regarding the alleged incident by the prosecutrix and after receiving the said information, she reached her house, which was found to be locked from outside and, she has seen the injuries on her body and admitted her into the Holycross hospital, Kunkuri. She deposed further that after regaining consciousness, she (prosecutrix) informed her that she was assaulted by the respondents and committed rape on her as well. The prosecutrix’s brother was examined as PW-5, who lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-6), after receiving the information from the said Smt. Vijyanti Tigga. 11) Although, it was stated as such by the prosecutrix that she was raped by her husband and the husband of her sister-in-law on 20.09.2014 at 10.30 PM, but, it, however, appears that when she was admitted into the Holycross hospital, Kunkuri on 21.09.2014 at 1.05 AM, on account of the alleged incident, her MLC Bed Head Ticket (Ex.P-5), would reveal the fact of the assault on her by a hard and sharp object alone and was found to be in a conscious state of mind. She was examined by Dr. Vinod Lakda (PW-4), who stated very specifically that when he treated the prosecutrix, he was informed by her only with regard to the alleged assault and, thereafter, he referred the prosecutrix for her better treatment, but Dr. S. Toppo (PW-8), who examined her, has, however, not found any kind of fracture on her body vide report (Ex.P-14). It, thus, 7 appears that though the alleged allegations have been levelled by the prosecutrix that she was not only assaulted by the respondents on the said fateful day, but was raped by them. However, a bare perusal of the statement of Dr. Vinod Lakda (PW-4), who examined her initially, has, however, not informed by her that she was raped by the respondents. It is to be seen further that the prosecutrix was assaulted by them with the aid of axe, but, no weapon as such was, however, recovered from them, so as to hold that on the said particular day, she was assaulted by them with the aid of axe. 12) Pertinently to be noted here further that when the alleged reports (Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-17) were lodged by her brother (PW-5), it was alleged that his sister was assaulted by her husband only and no allegation was, however, made therein that she was assaulted and raped by the husband of her sister-in-law, namely, Madan Kumar Lakda, though his name was found to be revealed by the prosecutrix in her statement (Ex.P-26) recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 14.11.2014. The prosecutrix is, thus, trying to attribute them in a false case. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in these appeals. 13) In view of above, the appeals, being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/-SD/- SD/-SSD/- /-d/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane