A prosecution witness’s statement cannot be said to be invalid merely because he has enmity with the accused: High Court of Chhattisgarh
In a criminal trial, the statement of a prosecution witness cannot be said to be invalid solely on grounds that there is some dispute or enmity with the accused. The case will be built based on how the statement corroborates with the evidence and other witness statements. This was held in the judgement passed by a single member bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh consisting of Justice Arvind Singh Chandel in the case of Aatmaram Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh [CRA No. 180 of 2016] pronounced on the 14th of July 2021. The appellant, Aatmaram Sahu was convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara on 27th July 2015 under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code for rape and criminal intimidation as well as Section 6 of POCSO for aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a minor. The appellant was sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for each of his crimes by the sessions court. The prosecutrix is the 12-year-old daughter of the appellant. The mother of the prosecutrix left the prosecutrix from her early childhood and she was residing with her uncle Roopchand Sahu since then. However, after the marriage of Roopchand Sahu, the prosecutrix began residing with her father, the appellant. The appellant allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix five times and threatened her for her life to not disclose it to anyone. When the prosecutrix’s uncles Roopchand Sahu and Bhikhamchand Sahu got to know about the numerous rapes, the report was lodged against the appellant. Based on a medical report by Dr Anamika Minj and statements by 15 prosecution witnesses including Roopchand Sahu, the appellant was convicted by the sessions court. The appellant in the present appeal contended that the main prosecution witness Roopchand Sahu and he had personal disputes and enmity for a long time and the entire case was fabricated as an act of revenge by him. As a result of this, the appellant prayed that the conviction be set aside as there was no truth to it. The High Court stated that the statements made by the prosecutrix and her uncle were duly corroborated by all the other prosecution witnesses and furthermore the sufficient evidence available on record against the appellant and the crime has duly proven his guilt.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CRA No. 1816 • Aatmaram Sahu S o Bodhi Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R o Village Dhanaura Police Station Nandghat District Bemetara Chhattisgarh Appellant • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Nandghat District Bemetara Chhattisgarh Respondent For Respondent State Mr. Neeraj Pradhan Advocate Mr. Akash Pandey P.L Hon ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board By the impugned judgment dated 27 07 2015 passed in S.T. No 09 2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bemetara District Bemetarathe Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2 000 rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2 000 respectively with default stipulations. In this case prosecutrix is aged about 12 years. The Appellant is father of the prosecutrix. According to the case of prosecution mother of prosecutrix left the prosecutrix from her childhood and since then she was residing with her uncle Roopchand Sahualleging therein that between 12.05.2014 to 19.09.2014 the Appellant five times committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and threatened her for life to not disclose the incident to anyone. On 19.09.2014 also the Appellant did the same on being fed up the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her uncles Bhikhamchand Sahuand Roopchand Sahu and thereafter lodged the said report against the Appellant. On the basis of report made by the prosecutrix offence has been registered against the Appellant. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Anamika Minjand her report is Ex. P 10. Later on statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed and the Trial Court has framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. No defense witness has been examined by the Appellant. Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. After trial the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence this appeal Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that without there being any clinching and reliable evidence available on record the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant. He further submits that the statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable because there is sufficient evidence available on record which shows that there was a previous enmity between the Appellant and Roopchanddue to which Roopchandprovoked the prosecutrix and she lodged a false and fabricated report against the Appellant but the Trial Court has not appreciated this fact and wrongly convicted the Appellant therefore his conviction is not sustainable Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of conviction I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record to assess the correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction. I have also gone through the statements of the witnesses There is no dispute on the point that prosecutrix is a real daughter of the Appellant at the time of incident she was aged about 12 years and mother of the prosecutrix left her from her childhood since then she was residing with her uncle Roopchand Sahuthe Appellant had taken the prosecutrix with him and since then she was residing with the Appellant. With regard to the incident in her Court statement prosecutrix categorically deposed that when she was residing with the Appellant at that time the Appellant five times committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and also threatened her for life. She further deposed that she narrated the entire incident to her uncles namely Bhikhamchand Sahuand Roopchand Sahuand thereafter lodged a report against the Appellant. The above statement of this witness is duly corroborated by Bhikhamchand Sahu and Roopchand Sahu that there was some dispute taken place between him and the Appellant But I do not found any substance with regard to the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant that Roopchand Sahu PW 4) provoked the prosecutrix and she lodged a report against the Appellant. There is nothing on record on the basis of which statement of the prosecutrix can be disbelieved. From the evidence available on record and looking to the entire case of prosecution there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant and the crime has duly proved against him. Thus the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant Consequently the appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed Sd (Arvind Singh Chandel Judge