1 2025:CGHC:37297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 518 of 2007  Mani Mohan Roy, S/o Mukund Roy, aged 35 years, R/o Kotmikala, Police Chowki – Kotmikala, Police Station – Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through – Station House Officer, Police Chowki – Kotmikala, Police Station – Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pritam Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 30/07/2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Special Judge, constituted under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 2 Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 104/2006 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 of IPC & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, plus default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that in the month of April, 2006, the Prosecutrix (PW-1) went to appellant for medical treatment of her irregular menstruation. The appellant after examining the Prosecutrix (PW-1) advice her for review after every week and also said that he would come to her house for examination/treatment. Thereafter, next week the appellant went to the house of Prosecutrix (PW-1) for examination and took her to a room and inserted his hand in the vagina of Prosecutrix (PW-1) and despite refusal by the Prosecutrix, the appellant committed forceful intercourse with her and extended threat that he would administer such a injection that she would die. The Prosecutrix due to fear did not inform anyone about the incident. Thereafter, the appellant every week started going to the house of Prosecutrix on the pretext of treatment and had sexual intercourse with her. One day, the Prosecutrix informed the incident to her neighbour sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Rammati (PW-4) and also to her mother (PW-3). The mother of 3 Prosecutrix (PW-3) dissuaded the appellant, then the appellant entered into quarrel with her and uttered caste remark. Further case of the prosecution is that on 30.08.2006, the appellant said the Prosecutrix to come to hospital for establishing physical relation but she denied to come to hospital, whereupon the appellant said that now she will have to pay Rs.20,000/- as consultation fees else he would tarnish her image in the society. Thereafter, on 08.09.2006, there was 10th day ceremony of grand-mother of the Prosecutrix, where the appellant also came and spread rumor that the Prosecutrix had aborted 9 months’ pregnancy, due to which, the relatives of the Prosecutrix did not attend the programme and husband of the Prosecutrix also deserted her company. Thereafter, Prosecutrix (PW-1) made a written report (Ex.P-1) in Police Station Pendra, on the basis of which, FIR (Ex.P-2) for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 against the appellant. The consent letter of the Prosecutrix for her medical examination was obtained vide Ex.P-3. Permission for MLC of the Prosecutrix was also obtained from SDM vide Ex.P-15. The Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) J.S. Lakda (PW-13) 4 and noticed following injuries/symptoms :- i. There was no injury over her private part. ii. Hymen old ruptured and healed. iii. The Prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. 3. During investigation, vaginal slides prepared were seized vide Ex.P-9. The clothes of the Prosecutrix were seized vide Ex.P-6. The appellant was also medically examined by Dr. N.S. Marko (PW-7) and gave his report vide Ex.P-10 opining that the appellant was capable of performign sexual intercourse. One axe was seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-12. Pubic hair of the appellant was seized vide Ex.p- 13. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-5. The caste certificate of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P-7. 4. After completing the usual investigation, the charge sheet under Sections 450, 376 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 was filed against the appellant. After filing of the charge sheet, the trail Court has framed the charges under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 against the accused/appellant, wherein he abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of 5 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record while acquitting the appellant from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has grossly erred in holding the appellant guilty under Section 376 of the IPC. The learned trail Court has failed to consider that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the Prosecutrix which points towards her consent but the trial Court without finding any legal evidence held the appellant guilty. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant on the conjoint reading of the 6 testimony of Prosecutrix (PW-1), mother of Prosecutrix (PW- 3) and Rammati Bai (PW-4). Learned counsel also submits that the report has been lodged against the appellant only when he demanded the professional fees for the treatment of the Prosecutrix. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the appellant deserves for acquittal. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the conviction of the accused/appellant is strictly in accordance law and there is no infirmity in the same. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The question which arises for consideration by this Court is whether the accused/appellant had committed rape with Prosecutrix or she was the consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant and whether reliance on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) should be placed or not. Whether corroboration is essential in rape cases before convicting an accused person ? 11. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar V. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 77 : 7 2020 SCC Online SC 194 in para 5.4.3 and 5.5 which read thus :- “5.4.3 In Krishan Kumar Malik V. State of Haryana, it is observed and held by this court that no doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 5.5. With the aforesaid decisions in mind, it is required to be considered, whether is it safe to convict the accused solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix? Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality ?” 12. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that the appellant is doctor by profession and she had consulted him for her menstruation related problem then the appellant said that he would come to her house for treatment and on the same day at evening, the appellant came to her house, examined her and she gave Rs.700/- as consultation fees. She has also stated that the appellant had told that he would also come next week. In second week, the appellant came to her house, removed 8 her clothes and took her inside the room of her house. The appellant also removed his clothes and committed rape with her. The appellant also extended threat that if she disclose the incident to anyone, he would play such a game that they would run to Court and continued to have physical relation with her. This witness has also stated that her grand-mother had passed away and in her last ritual, the appellant had also come and in front of people of society he said that he had aborted her (prosecutrix’s) 9 months foetus and buried it in the ground. At that time, her husband was also present there and after listening the appellant, he did not take her with him. Thereafter, she filed written report (Ex.P-1) in Police Station – Kotmi. This witness, in para 18 of her cross-examination, has admitted that the appellant had committed rape with her first time in the month of January, 2005, and thereafter, he had been committing so in every week and she did not tell anyone in this regard. She has also stated that she informed her neighbour sister-in-law (bhabhi) about this after the appellant committed rape with her 2-3 times. She has admitted that appellant had told everyone again her in the 10th day ceremony of her grand- mother and had insulted her in front of the people of society and her husband did not take her with him, therefore, she 9 filed the report against the appellant. She has also admitted that if the appellant had not insulted her, she would not have reported against him. She has denied this suggestion that she had affair with her uncle Tarkeshwar. 13. Father of Prosecutrix (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution case and stated that the Prosecutrix and her mother did not tell anything to him. The prosecution declared this witness hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution. 14. Mother of Prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated that she used to take the Prosecutrix to appellant for treatment regarding her irregular menstruation but the appellant had told that he would come to house for treatment. She has also stated that one day the Prosecutrix (Pw-1) told her that the appellant used to caught hold her and do bad things then she asked the appellant that the Prosecutrix is like his daughter and how he did bad things with her but the appellant scolded her and drove her away. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the appellant had told her brother-in-law (Jeth) Sardin Singh that he had aborted the child of prosecutrix and her brother-in-law had told this to the society when her mother-in-law’s last rites were being performed. She has also stated that her brother-in-law had told that he would not 10 eat meal in her house due to this. Since her brother-in-law said this, the society had abandoned them and due to this incident, they filed a report against the appellant. 15. Rammati Bai (PW-4) is the neighbour of the Prosecutrix. She has stated that she had gone to the house of Prosecutrix for taking vegetable and the appellant was also present in her house. Thereafter, the appellant took the prosecutrix in one room and she stayed there for 1-2 hours. At that time, the Prosecutrix shouted then she entered the room and saw the Prosecutrix and appellant in compromising position. 16. Dr. (Smt.) J.S. Lakda (PW-13) is the doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix. She has stated that on 15.09.2006 she examined the Prosecutrix and upon external and internal examination she gave report vide Ex.P-14 opining that no definite opinion can be given regarding the sexual intercourse and the prosecutrix was habitual for sexual intercourse. 17. It is clear from the testimony of the Prosecutrix (PW-1) that she admitted the factum of rape by the appellant in every week from January, 2005, but report was lodged by the Prosecutrix on 14.09.2006. The Prosecutrix (PW-1) has also admitted that when the appellant told everyone about the 11 abortion and insulted her then she lodged the report (Ex.P- 1) against the appellant. The aforesaid admission of the Prosecutrix clearly established that she is not a reliable witness. That apart, father of prosecutrix (PW-2) has not supported the case of the prosecution and mother of prosecutrix (PW-3) has also not stated specifically about the commission of rape by the appellant. 18. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire full confidence of the Court. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis of the evidence of Prosecutrix (PW/1) and mother (PW/3) what emerges is that the appellant used to give treatment to the prosecutrix at her house and during this period physical relation was developed between them and same continued from January, 2005 till the lodging of written report (Ex.P-1) i.e. on 14.09.2006. It is the admission of the prosecutrix also that she lodged the report against the appellant only after disclosure by him about her abortion and it was also admitted by her that if the appellant had not disclosed this, she would not have lodged the report against the appellant, which shows that she was consenting party to the act of the 12 accused/appellant. The testimony of Prosecutrix (PW/1) does not inspires full confidence of this Court and the same cannot be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant. Thus, in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, it would be difficult for this Court to arrive at definite conclusion that it is the appellant who committed rape with prosecutrix against her will. 19. As discussed above with regard to the truthfulness of the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), when examined by the medical evidence of PW-13 and medical report (Ex.P/14), this Court does not find the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) to be natural and truthful & the same is not sufficient to hold the accused/appellant guilty. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of course has to go to the appellant. 20. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused appellant Mani Mohan Roy is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur (C.G.) are set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him extending benefit of doubt. 13 21. The appellant is already on bail. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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. 22. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde