1 CRA No. 890 of 2006 Alam Sai vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2025:CGHC:33708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 890 of 2006 Alam Sai, S/o Shri Ramcharan Rajwar, aged about 25 years, R/o Puhputra, Chilbil Para, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S.- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Smt. Seema Mishra, Advocate. For State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Additional A.G. _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 17.07.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 02.12.2006 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 232/2005, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 (1) of IPC R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional S.I. for one month. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 CRA No. 890 of 2006 Alam Sai vs. State of Chhattisgarh Under Section 366 of IPC R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional S.I. for one month. Under Section 342 of IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional S.I. for 15 days. Under Section 506 -I of IPC R.I. for 02 years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional S.I. for 15 days. (All the sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case is that on 22.04.2005 at about 12 am the prosecutrix (PW-3) went to boring for fetching the water and upon seeing the prosecutrix, Sonabai called her to talk to her, as such the prosecutrix left her bucket in the house of Sanmat Bai and she went to Sonabai’s house and stayed there for a long time. At about 3 pm, the appellant reached Sonabai’s house and forcibly caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix by saying that he will keep her as a wife and he took her to his house and locked her in his house from inside. When the prosecutrix screamed for help, then the appellant threatened her by saying that he will kill her, the said incident was seen by Sonabai. Thereafter prosecutrix’s parents came to know about the said incident and reached to the house of appellant and they tried to open the door, but the appellant did not open the door, held the prosecutrix as his captive, where he committed wrong things with her for multiple times without her consent, even Anup and Sukul asked to open the door, but did not open the door and forcibly kept her restrained. Later, he 3 CRA No. 890 of 2006 Alam Sai vs. State of Chhattisgarh released the prosecutrix after being asked to inform the police station. The prosecutrix (PW-3) lodged an F.I.R. (Ex. P/4) before the concerned police station against the appellant/accused. During the investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/9, blood stained bangles and petticoat of the prosecutrix were seized vide Ex. P/6. Thereafter, the vaginal slide of the complainant/prosecutrix was prepared. After obtaining the consent letter from the prosecutrix, her medical examination was conducted and also medical examination of her petticoat and underwear were conducted. Medical examination of the accused person/appellant was also conducted, statements of the witnesses as well as prosecutrix statement’s were recorded and the appellant was arrested. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 366, 342, 376 and 506-I of IPC. The appellants/accused having abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 3. In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, two witness examined by him in his defence. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in 4 CRA No. 890 of 2006 Alam Sai vs. State of Chhattisgarh inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 5. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court ought to have seen that the prosecutrix herself admitted this fact that she was sleeping with the appellant by covering a blanket, which shows that she was consenting party. She would further submit that the learned trial Court ought to have considered that the date of incident 22.04.2005, whereas the report was lodged on 27.04.2005 after a period of five days and sufficient cause has not been mentioned in the FIR. The prosecutrix is a married lady and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution that the appellant forcefully taken the prosecutrix. Moreover, the place of incident is a place where the persons are residing. Learned trial Court has also not considered this fact that there was omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix and her father, however, there was subsisting enmity between the family of the prosecutrix and the appellant, so prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and findings recorded by learned trial court are highly perverse. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 5 CRA No. 890 of 2006 Alam Sai vs. State of Chhattisgarh 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is evident from record of learned learned trial Court that it framed charges for offence punishable under Sections 366, 342, 376 (1) and 506-1 of IPC against the present appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 366, 342, 376 (1) and 506-1 of IPC. 9. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that on the date of incident she went to boring for fetching the water, at that time Sonabai called her to talk and while she was talking in her house, the appellant came to Sonabai’s house and forcibly caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix saying that “I will keep you as a wife” and when she screamed for help, the accused did not leave her hand and forcibly took her to his house and locked the door from inside, then the appellant threatened her by saying that he will kill her, however she tried to open the door, but the appellant did not open the door, and he committed wrong things with her for multiple times. Further, she stated that her parents went to the corn field at the time of incident and when they returned from the field, she was not found in her house, then they started searching for her and when she screamed for help, her parents reached near the house of appellant with other villagers and they tried to open the door, but the appellant did not open the door. Thereafter, on the next day, she lodged the report before the police station. In her cross-examination, she admitted this fact that her first marriage was solemnized with Choteram, but denied the fact that second marriage was solemnized with one Satyendra Das. However, she denied the suggestion in cross-examination that she had in love affair with the 6 CRA No. 890 of 2006 Alam Sai vs. State of Chhattisgarh appellant, but she admitted the suggestion in para 12 that the police had entered by breaking the door, at that time they were sleeping by covering themselves with the blanket. She also admitted in para 8 of her cross-examination that the police also beaten her, caught the appellant and took him with them. 10. As per F.I.R. (Ex. P/4) date of incident is 22.04.2005 and F.I.R. lodged on 27.04.2005 by the prosecutrix, however, cause of delay is mentioned as due to ill health ( तबियत ठीक नहीं रहने से). 11. Dr. R.R. Ekka (PW-1), who examined the prosecutrix stated that she found abrasion on her back left side of ear and on "pinna" (or auricle), her thigh sides, though she did not find any internal injury in private part of the prosecutrix, she opined that the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse and no definite opinion can be given regarding the recent forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereby gave her report vide Ex. P/1. 12. Sahodar Ram (DW-1) has stated in his deposition that the prosecutrix and the accused had love affair between them, however, in this regard, prosecutrix’s parents had raised objections, due to which her family members beaten the accused. 13. Sona Bai (DW-2) has stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix came to her house at 11 am, saying that she was going to the accused’s house, then she went to his house. 14. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-4) has stated in his deposition that he went to the corn field with his wife at the time of incident and when they returned from the field, the prosecutrix was not found in the house, then they started for searching and when the prosecutrix screamed for help, 7 CRA No. 890 of 2006 Alam Sai vs. State of Chhattisgarh her parents reached near the house of appellant with other villagers and they tried to open the door, but the appellant did not open the door. Thereafter, at 9 pm called the police, then the police came. The police entered the house by breaking the door and handed over the girl (prosecutrix) to us and took the appellant into the jeep. In para 7 of his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that he came to know by the evening that his daughter is in the house of accused, despite being apprised by the whereabouts of his daughter, he did not go to the police. Further, he stated in para 8 of his cross-examination that instead of lodging the report at night, on the next day of morning went to the police station to lodge report, then we went to the Court of Ambikapur for making a written request (दरख्वास्त) and thereafter went with the Advocate to S.P. Office. 15. Thus, it is evident from statement of prosecutrix and her father that prosecutrix was a major lady, aged about 19 years and she was married with one another person, however, defence witnesses have stated that the prosecutrix had love affair with the appellant and she went with her own free will. Further, the prosecutrix admitted this fact in her cross-examination that the police beaten her and when the police entered the house of the appellant by breaking the door, at that time prosecutrix and the appellant were sleeping by covering themselves with the blanket, as such it shows the conduct of the prosecutrix and also medical report has not supported the prosecution case. However, Dr. R.R. Ekka (PW-1) has found some abrasion on the prosecutrix’s body, but the prosecutrix herself admitted this fact that the police beaten her, when she was found in the room of the appellant, so the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable 8 CRA No. 890 of 2006 Alam Sai vs. State of Chhattisgarh doubt that the accused abducted the prosecutrix or wrongfully confined her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecutrix and thereby gave wrong findings, thus, findings recorded by learned trial Court are not sustainable. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.12.2006 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him. The appellant is already on bail. Keeping in view 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. 17. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL