1 CRA No. 383/2016 2025:CGHC:38473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 383 of 2016 1 - Mulender Ekka S/o Bulkan Ekka Aged About 21 Years R/o Kerakachhar Ghutra Para, Police Station - Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Arakshi Kendra Chowki Kotba, Police Station - Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Shri Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.06 18:27:05 +0530 2 CRA No. 383/2016 sentence dated 08.03.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 49/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine additional S.I for 120 days. 2. Brief facts of the case is that on 03.04.2015, the complainant Smt. Sukita Toppo (P.W.-1) lodged a report at Police Station Pathalgaon to the effect that there was a love affair between the appellant and victim (P.W.-2) (daughter of complainant) and being same caste, the complainant was not objected to the appellant. On 31.03.2015, in night, after taking food, the complainant and her husband were sleeping in courtyard of house, at that time, appellant came into her house and went to room of victim (P.W.-2). After sometime, the complainant heard cries of victim, upon which, she came to her room and saw that the victim was burning. The complainant called the 3 CRA No. 383/2016 other family members for help and the father of victim covered her by blanket and then taken her to Community Health Centre, Pathalgaon for treatment and on being asked, she told that the appellant set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. The learned trial Court after completing the trial not found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted him. However, convicted and sentenced him for offence under Section 308 IPC as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this Judgment. 5. (a) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that finding given by the learned trial Court against the appellant is perverse and contrary to evidence on record. He submits that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of testimony of interested witnesses, however the independent prosecution witnesses have not 4 CRA No. 383/2016 supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that when the appellant refused for marry the victim, she became stressed and she expressed to her parents that she don’t want to live, therefore, it quite be possible that due to said stress, she poured kerosene and set ablaze herself on fire. He further submit that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of Rajanti Toppo (P.W.-11), who has stated that in the earlier occasion on account of refusal for marriage, the victim consumed poison and she could be saved after treatment. Therefore it is clear that earlier also, the victim tried to commit suicide, and the same cannot be overruled that on the date of incident, she herself poured kerosene and set fire on her. (b) According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant for the alleged offence, particularly when the deposition of the prosecution witnesses are not corroborated with each other and there are major contradiction and omission in the statement of witnesses, which cannot be relied upon. Hence the impugned conviction and sentence are liable to be set-aside. 5 CRA No. 383/2016 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that there are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The victim/injured (PW-2) stated that she knew the accused, as they both liked each other. Referring to the incident that took place in March 2015, she deposed that on the date of the incident, the accused came to her house at around 9:00 p.m. in an intoxicated state; poured kerosene on her, which was kept in the house; and set her on fire, as a result of which, she sustained burn injuries. Upon hearing her cries, her parents rushed and extinguished the fire by using a blanket. Thereafter, they took her to Pathalgaon Hospital, where she 6 CRA No. 383/2016 got treatment for eight days before returning home after recovery. 9. Mother of the Victim (PW-1) stated that she recognized the accused, Mulender Ekka, as he was from her village. She further stated that victim is her daughter and was 18 years old at the time. Although she could not recall the exact date of the incident, she stated that on the night of the occurrence, she and her husband were sleeping outside the house, while Sandhya was sleeping in another room. At around 9:00 p.m., they heard Sandhya shouting that she was being burnt. Upon hearing her cries, they immediately rushed to her room and saw that Sandhya was on fire. They then covered her with a blanket and extinguished the flames. At the time of the incident, her husband, her sister-in-law, her sister-in-law’s daughter Rajanti, and another female relative were present. The accused, Mulender Ekka, was seen standing inside Sandhya’s room. When they asked Sandhya who had set her on fire, she told them that the accused, Mulender, had poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Following this, Sandhya was taken by car to Pathalgaon Hospital, where she was admitted and treated for about a week before returning home 7 CRA No. 383/2016 after recovery. The witness added that on the third day after the incident, she lodged a First Information Report (Ex. P/1) at the Pathalgaon Police Station. 10. Father of the victim (PW-4) has stated that he recognized the accused, as he belonged to his village. He further stated that victim is his daughter. On the date of the incident, he and his wife were sleeping in the house, while their daughter, was sleeping in a room. He mentioned that they did not see when the accused entered the house. Upon hearing Sandhya scream, they rushed to her room and saw that she was engulfed in flames. At that moment, the accused was standing in front of her. He then extinguished the fire with a blanket. He further deposed that when he asked his daughter what had happened, she told him that the accused had poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. Thereafter, she was taken to the Government Hospital in Pathalgaon for treatment. She remained there for six days and recovered. Sister in law (PW3) has turned hostile. 11. Medical Officer Dr. Sandhyarani Toppo (PW-6) stated that the victim had been admitted to CHC Pathalgaon on 31.03.2015 due to burn injuries. She further stated that the victim was 8 CRA No. 383/2016 brought to her on 07.04.2015 at around 1:45 p.m. for medical examination. Upon examination, the following injuries were observed: “The victim’s left arm was burnt from shoulder to wrist; the right arm was burnt from elbow to shoulder; approximately one-third of her back, both sides of her neck and back, as well as both ears, were also burnt. The burns had caused full-thickness damage to the skin.” Dr. Toppo opined that she had sustained 36% burn injuries, which were of a serious nature, in this regard she issued a medical report (Ex. P/7) 12. Thus from the evidence of the victim (PW-2), Mother (PW-1), Father (PW-4) and Dr. Sandhya Rani Toppo (PW-6), it is crystal clear that, that it is the accused/appellant who had poured kerosene over the body of victim and set her on fire, as a result of which she sustained the following injuries: left arm was burnt from shoulder to wrist; the right arm was burnt from elbow to shoulder; approximately one-third of her back, both sides of her neck and back, as well as both ears, were 9 CRA No. 383/2016 also burnt. The burns had caused full-thickness damage to the skin. 13. The question for consideration would be, whether the trial court was justified in holding the appellant guilty under Section 308 of IPC.? At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 308 of the IPC which states as under: - Section 308 of IPC: Attempt to commit culpable homicide “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 14. Thus taking a cumulative note of the medical evidence collected by the prosecution; looking to the nature of the crime and severity of the injuries, which are even life threatening and also keeping in the mind the medical report 10 CRA No. 383/2016 (Ex.P/7), it will not be apt to interfere with a well reasoned judgment and order passed by learned trial court, as it may lead to erosion of confidence of public in judicial system. 15. In view of the above, the judgment dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 49/2015, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated in Para 1 above, is hereby affirmed. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 17. The appellant is stated to be in bail His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of sentence. he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original 11 CRA No. 383/2016 record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib/Gowri