Mere allegation of love affair won’t serve as a ground for acquittal: High Court Chhattisgarh
Mere allegation of love affair without supporting evidence where no person has seen the lady in a compromising position, won’t serve as a ground for acquittal to the perpetrator. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Arvind Singh Chandel adjudicating in the matter of Mukku @ Mukesh Yadav vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (CRIMINAL APPEAL No.812 of 2013) dealt with an issue of whether to grant acquittal to the Appellant.
In the present case, the appellant preferred an appeal against the impugned judgement dated 21.08.2013 where he was convicted u/s 376 & 450 IPC. The Appellant is a married person having two children and the prosecutrix is a major lady having two children. The prosecution around 9:30 asserted that when she was sleeping in her house with her 8-year-old child, the Appellant knocked on the door of her house and barged inside the house, and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecution. Immediately, after the incident, the prosecutrix immediately informed the PW-2 and also narrated the whole incident to her husband.
The prosecution filed a report in the Police station and she was medically examined. Statements were recorded and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was formed. Statement of Appellant was also recorded and he pleaded that he was innocent and false implications have been made against him, but in the process of trial, he was convicted.
The appellant in his appeal submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is a lack of evidence in support of the offences charged against him. Also, it was submitted that the court failed to consider the statement of defence witness, which stated that there was a love affair between the prosecutrix and appellant since last 6-7 year and contended that the circumstances clearly shows that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
After examining all the witnesses, the court held that” There is also no such fact available in this case which shows that husband of the prosecutrix or any other person has seen her in a compromising position, then only she had made a complaint. Therefore, no such substance is available in the statement of the appellant where he has stated that they were having a love relationship and the prosecutrix was the consenting party in the alleged act.”
It is clearly evident that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant to hold him guilty. The Appellant has “completed about more than 9 years in jail. Appellant is also a married person having two children. Further considering the family condition and detention period of the appellant, and the fact that he is facing the lis since 2013, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentenced awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.”