Supreme Court Pulls Up Chhattisgarh Authorities for Flouting Directions to Produce Accused – Chatt Kunwar Sarthi Case

Overview of the Matter

The case of Chatt Kunwar Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. has been the subject of proceedings at two levels — the High Court of Chhattisgarh and subsequently the Supreme Court of India. While the High Court dealt with the substantive question of conviction and acquittal, the Supreme Court proceedings have taken a sharp turn toward addressing the issue of institutional non-compliance with judicial directions.

This article covers both dimensions: the High Court's findings that led to acquittal, and the Supreme Court's strong response to the State's failure to produce the respondent as directed.

Nature of the Appeal

The High Court proceedings originated from an appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directed against a conviction and sentence order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge, Korba, under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Charges and Sentence Imposed by the Trial Court

The accused had been found guilty by the trial court of the following offences:

  • Section 376(2)(L) of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
  • Section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The sentence handed down included life imprisonment, making it a matter of significant gravity.

Prosecution's Case – Summary of Allegations

The prosecution's case rested on a complaint lodged by the mother of the victim. The core allegations were as follows:

  • The victim, who was reportedly suffering from a mental health condition, was taken away by the accused on a motorcycle
  • Upon her return, she was found to have sustained injuries and her clothing was torn
  • It was alleged that the accused had transported her to a different location where the act of rape was committed
  • An FIR was registered following the complaint, and a chargesheet was filed after investigation
  • The prosecution examined eight witnesses in total and also placed documentary evidence on record

Arguments Advanced by the Appellant

The appellant raised several substantial grounds to challenge the conviction:

  • The prosecutrix was never examined during the trial proceedings
  • Her earlier recorded statements did not contain any reference to rape
  • Key witnesses identified by the prosecution were not examined
  • Medical evidence did not corroborate the allegation of sexual assault
  • No DNA testing was conducted to connect the accused to the semen detected on the seized articles
  • The caste certificate relied upon by the prosecution was not proved through legally admissible evidence
  • There was a complete absence of medical documentation regarding the mental condition of the victim

State's Position