1 2025:CGHC:34901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.765 of 2007 Judgment reserved on : 08.05.2025 Judgment delivered on : 22.07.2025 1 - Rohit Kumar Loniya Chauhan S/o Balak Ram Chauhan, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Nirtu, Karhipara, presently residing at Kududdand, Matachaura, P.S. Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, PS Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh Kela, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2007 passed by the learned Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in ST No.86/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with default Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.07.2006 at about 7 pm, when the prosecutrix had gone to see regulation of water in the field and was alone, at that time the appellant came there and caught hold her from back side and pushed her on the field and after gagging her mouth, he committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Trial Court has not considered that there was previous dispute between the family members of the appellant and the prosecutrix and various complaints were filed between each other, but all these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the learned Trial Court and the appellant has wrongly been convicted. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely 3 appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 376 (1) of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 (1) of IPC, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that on the date of incident, she went to field for nature’s call at that time the accused caught her, threatened and committed rape with her. On the next day, she lodged FIR against the appellant vide Ex-P/1. In the cross- examination, she admitted that there is a land dispute between the accused’s wife and her and she also filed civil suit before the Trial Court. She denied this suggestion that she lodged a false report due to land dispute. She also stated that at the time of incident, there were injuries and abrasions (kharoch) in her back. 8. PW-2 son of the prosecutrix stated that his mother told him about the incident, then they lodged FIR against the appellant. 9. PW-4 Dr. Sandhya Rani Toppo examined the prosecutrix but she 4 did not find any external or internal injuries on her body and she opined that no definite opinion can be given about the recent sexual intercourse and gave her report (Ex-P/7). In the cross- examination, she stated that during examination, she did not find any abrasions and bleeding in the back side of the prosecutrix. 10. PW-6 Pushpa Bai, daughter-in-law of the prosecutrix stated that the prosecutrix told her that when she went to field for nature’s call, the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She also stated that there is dispute between her mother-in-law i.e. the prosecutrix and the accused. She also admitted that they did not tell anybody in the village about the incident and directly reported the matter before the concerned police station. She also admitted that they had appointed a lawyer to contest the case. 11. It is clear from the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), PW-2 son of the prosecutrix, PW-6 daughter-in-law of the prosecutrix that there was a land dispute between the prosecutrix and the accused’s wife. The prosecutrix was aged about 42 years, whereas accused was aged about 33 years at the time of incident. There was previous enmity between the accused wife and the prosecutrix regarding the land prior to the incident and even after incident, they did not report the matter to the concerned police station for a long time. The prosecutrix also stated that she got injuries/abrasions on her back, but doctor (PW-6) did not find any internal or external injury on the body of 5 the deceased. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, held in para 15 as under:- “15. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to 6 enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 13. In light of the above, in the present case, it is clear that the statements of the prosecutrix are not reliable and trustworthy. The prosecutrix was aged about 42 years, whereas accused was aged about 33 years at the time of incident. It is also clear from the statements of the witnesses that there was also a previous enmity between the accused wife and the prosecutrix regarding the land, as such this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, thus the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 16. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7 17. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala