1 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 2026:CGHC:10702-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 660 of 2015 [Arising out of judgment dated 13.05.2015 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.01/2014 by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bastar at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.]  Pawan Soyam S/o Yarra Soyam, Aged About 21 Years, Occupation- Student, R/o Near High School Dornapala, Police Station Dornapala, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant :- Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate. For State :- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. CRA No. 792 of 2015  Chandan Sana S/o Shankar Sana, Aged About 22 Years, By Occupation- Student, R/o Near Dornapala High School, Police Station- Dornapala, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh, Civil And Revenue District - Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2026.03.03 15:34:17 +0530 2 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015  The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S.- Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. D.S. Gwalre, Advocate For State :- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board (02.03.2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Since these two criminal appeals have arisen out of the common impugned judgment dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Special Court, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bastar at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, in Special Sessions Trial No.01/2014, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2015 namely Chandan Sana (A-1) and the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2015 namely Pawan Soyam (A-2); both have preferred these two appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, calling in question the validity, legality and correctness of the impugned judgment, whereby both have been convicted and sentenced as under:- 3 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 Conviction Sentence Under Section 376(d) of the IPC R.I. for 20 years with fine of ₹1,000/- (each); in default of payment of fine they have to undergo R.I. for 3 years. Under Section 506(Part II) of the IPC R.I. for 3 years. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently. Prosecution story:- 3. The case projected by the prosecution and accepted by the Special Court is that on 23.03.2014 at Nayapara, Jagdalpur in the rented house the appellants herein knowing well that the victim (PW-6) belongs to Scheduled Tribes, committed gang rape upon PW-6 and threatened her to kill if she discloses the said fact to anyone and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Against the said act of the appellants written report (Ex.P/7) was made by PW-6 pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/8. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/1. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellants were arrested. Victim (PW-6) was medically examined by Dr. Smt. Manish Goyal (PW-8) who prepared the victim’s medical report vide Ex.P/14. In the victim’s medical report (Ex.P/14), neither external injuries nor internal injuries were found except the hymen was found old and ruptured and even no definite opinion has been given by the 4 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 doctor with regard to rape. Slides of the victim were prepared and sent for chemical analysis to FSL along with other seized articles i.e. undergarments of the victim and appellants. In the FSL report (Ex.P/28) on the slides of the victim (Article A) human sperm was found and on the undergarments (Articles B & D) of the victim and appellant-Pawan Soyam (A-2) stains of semen and human sperm were found. 4. After due investigation, appellants herein were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants / accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents and defence in support of its case has examined 4 witness and exhibited 4 documents. 6. The learned Special Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants / accused persons for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment while acquitting A-1 (Chandan Sana) from offence under Sections 3(1)(12) and 3(2)(5) 5 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission:- 7. Mr. D.S. Gwalre, learned counsel for appellant-Chandan Sana, would submit that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He would also submit that medical report has not supported the case of the prosecution and in absence of matching of semen forensic evidence is of no use to the prosecution in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana 1 . He would further submit that the victim (PW-6) was a consenting party and her statement (PW-6) is not of “sterling quality” in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2 followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar 3 . Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principles of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 1 (2011) 7 SCC 130 2 (2012) 8 SCC 21 3 (2020) 3 SCC 443 6 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 8. Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya, learned counsel for appellant-Pawan Soyam, would submit that victim (PW-6) in her statement before the Court herself has stated that appellant-Pawan Soyam did not commit rape and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 9. On the other hand, Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offences against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. He would also submit that the FSL report (Ex.P/28) has supported the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that to the facts of the present case Section 114 A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “Act of 1872”) would also be applied. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records meticulously. Discussion & Analysis:- 11.Medical Evidence:- The victim (PW-6) was medically examined by Dr. Smt. Manish Goyal (PW-8), who prepared the victim’s 7 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 medical report vide Ex.P/14, in which hymen was found old and ruptured however, neither external injuries nor internal injuries were found over the body of the victim and even no definite opinion has been given by the doctor with regard to rape. As such, medical evidence has not supported the case of the prosecution and the same is of no use to the prosecution and even it is case of the defense that the victim was the consenting party. 12.Forensic evidence:- The Special Court has relied upon the FSL report (Ex.P/28) to base the conviction of the appellants for the offences in question. However, though in the FSL report (Ex.P/28) stains of semen and human sperm were found on the undergarments of the victim (PW-6) and appellant Pawan Soyam (A-2) and human sperm was found on the victim’s slide, but the matching of semen was not done to find out that it was of the appellants herein which is required in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik (supra) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in para 44 as under:- “44. Now, after the incorporation of Section 52-B in the Criminal Procedure Code w.e.f. 23-6-2006, brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the Sate, it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of cases, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in CrPC the prosecution could 8 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 have still resorted to this procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of the appellant with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a foolproof case, but they did not do so, thus they must fact the consequences.” 13.Coming to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above stated decision, it is quite vivid that the prosecution did not go for matching of semen to prove that it is of the appellants’ semen which is necessary for the prosecution to make a foolproof case. As such, the forensic evidence is also of no use to the prosecution. 14.Admittedly, the victim was major, aged about 19 years, on the date and time of incident. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the victim is a “sterling witness” and her statement is of “sterling quality” to base the conviction of the appellants for the offences in question ? 15.A careful perusal of the statement of victim (PW-6) would show that on 23.03.2014 on being called by Chandan Sana (A-1) to watch movie, she (PW-6) reached near the court waiting lounge at about 10:00 am and from the waiting lounge A-1 took her to his rented house at Naya para where other appellant Pawan (A-2) was present. They (A-1 & A-2) administered her cold drink and 9 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 after taking cold drink she felt dizziness and sat on the floor. Thereafter, appellants (A-1 & A-2) took her on the bed and committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. When she (PW-6) gained consciousness, A-2 dropped her to her village at Barungpal. She has further stated that in the rented house, the landlord used to live in the ground floor and also the said place is crowded area, however she did not ask for help or raise alarm and did not inform anyone while coming at the rented house of the appellant and also while going to her village Barungpal. In the cross-examination at para 22, she (PW-6) has clearly stated that appellant Pawan Soyam (A-2) did not commit the rape, but he had made attempt to rape. Even otherwise, the victim (PW-6) remained with the appellants for 6 hours, but she did not raise any alarm against the appellant in order to inform landlord or neighbours. Furthermore, the conduct of the victim (PW-6) that coming from her house to the court waiting lounge at Jagdalpur which is more than 30 kms from her house and from the waiting lounge to the rented house of A-1 without informing her parents would show that the victim was the consenting party which is the case of the defence. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies in the statement of the victim (PW-6), we are of the considered opinion that statement of the victim is not of “sterling quality” and she is not a “sterling witness” as she fails to pass any of the tests of 10 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 “sterling witness” in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar (supra), and therefore, it would be unsafe to base the conviction of the appellants on the basis of the statement of the victim (PW-6). Furthermore, Section 114A of the Act of 1872 would not apply in the present case, as in the present case the appellants have charged for offence under Section 376(d) of the IPC and they were not charged for offence punishable under clause (f) of sub- Section (2) of Section 376 of the IPC. [See:- Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana 4 ] 16.Accordingly, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence against the appellants herein as we have already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs that the statement of the victim (PW-6) is not of “sterling quality” as she fails to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. Further, the medical evidence has not supported the case of the prosecution and forensic evidence is of no use to the prosecution in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik (supra). As such, it would be absolutely unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellants for offences in question, and, 4 AIR OnLine 2024 SC 358 11 CRA No. 660 of 2015 & CRA No. 792 of 2015 therefore, they are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. Conclusion:- 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Special Court convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences in question, is hereby set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt. Since the appellants are stated to be on bail, they need not surrender. However, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Ankit