1 CRA No.189/2021 2025:CGHC:23761-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 189 of 2021 1 - Anupal Rajwade & Others S/o Shyamlal Rajwade Aged About 25 Years R/o Karhiyakhad, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Gourelal S/o Ramlakhan Singh Aged About 44 Years Caste Gond, R/o Bardiya Gobripara, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Shanti Rajwade W/o Anupal Rajwade Aged About 31 Years R/o Karhiyakhad, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ajak Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent Cause title has been taken from CIS For Appellants : Mr.Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.16 16:37:35 +0530 2 CRA No.189/2021 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru J. 13/06/2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21/12/2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh in Special Atrocities Case No. 59/2018, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Sentence Conviction Under Section 109, 376(घ) of the IPC. R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.50000/- each and in default, S.I. for two years each. Under Section 342 of the IPC R.I. for 1 years each (For appellant Nos.1 & 2) Under Section 328 of the IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in de- fault, S.I. for three months All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.08.2018 at about 11.00 a.m. the victim and her sister left the house to go to Patna, but on the way, victim felt ill, thereafter, she alone started returning from some distance. When the victim was returning home, she came across the house of appellant No.3-Shanti Rajwade and the victim was called by accused Shanti Rajwade to take rest in her house. The appellant No.3 forcibly made drink alcohol to victim, due to which, she became intoxicated. 3 CRA No.189/2021 Thereafter, appellant Nos.1 and 2 came inside from her house and both of them took the victim inside the goat shed of the house and committed sexual intercourse with her. Appellant/Shanti Rajwade was standing and watching the incident. After committing the offence of rape, accused Shanti Rajwade and accused Anupal Rajwade left the victim at some distance away from her house. On the next day, the victim went to her maternal uncle's house in village Chhindiya where she stayed for a few days. When victim's parents came to take her, the victim returned to her village Karhiyakhand. Thereafter, the victim narrated the whole incident to her parents. Subsequently, on the basis of complaint made by the victim, the concerned Police Station registered an FIR(Ex.P-2) against the appellants. After due investigation, the appellants was arrested vide Ex.P-18 to 22. . She was medically examined by Dr. Shikha Soni (PW-5) and submitted a report vide Ex.P-11. Undergarments of victim and appellants were seized and the same were sent to FSL for examination and FSL report is exhibited vide Ex.P-31. 3. In order to bring home the above-stated offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 4 CRA No.189/2021 4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that the date of incident, as per prosecution, is 15/08/2018 and FIR was lodged on 22/08/2018 i.e. after seven days, hence, there is delay in lodging the FIR. He further submits that as per medical report, no any external or internal injuries found in the private parts of the victim and the Doctor, who examined the victim, has not given definitely opinion that she was subjected to rape. Also, in the FSL report, no sperms were found on the vaginal slide and undergarments of victim. Hence, looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the alleged offence is not made out against the appellants and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the statement of the victim and other witnesses are fully reliable. There are sufficient evidence available on record to 5 CRA No.189/2021 hold that the appellants are guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants which does not require for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Now, the question which arises for consideration is, what are the circumstances which shows that the victim was raped by the appellants/accused. 9. Victim (PW-1) stated in her evidence that on 15th August 2018 at about 11.00 am she left the house with her sister together. Her sister was going to Patna and she was going to her aunt's house in Baikunthpur, but due to shortage of money, she started returned back to home and her sister gone to Patna. She stated that while returning home, she reached near the house of accused Shanti Rajwade, then accused Shanti asked her to take rest inside her house. Thereafter, accused Shanti Rajwade forcefully made drink alcohol to victim, due to which, she became intoxicated. After that, appellant Nos.1 and 2 came inside the house and took her to goat shed, where both of them committed sexual intercourse with her one by one. She further stated that after committing sexual intercourse with her, the appellants left her at some distance away from her house. Thereafter, she was 6 CRA No.189/2021 also threatened by the appellant No.3 not to disclose anyone about the incident. She further deposed that after coming home, she did not tell the incident to her parents. On the next day, she went to her maternal uncle's house and stayed there for a week but during that time she did not tell anyone about the incident. She further stated that when her parents came to took her at the house of maternal uncle, she returned home with her parents. On second day, when her mother asked her, then she narrated the whole incident to her. 10. Ram Bai(PW-4), mother of victim, stated in her evidence that the incident took place on 15th August last year, on the said date, she and her husband had gone to the field to sow the seeds. Both the victim and her sister left the house to go to their aunt's house in Baikunthpur, on the way, a quarrel broke out between the victim and her sister, then both the victim and her sister separated, after which, victim's sister went to Patna and the victim was started to returning home. On the way, she stopped at the house of the accused Shanti Rajwada to drink water. She deposed that instead of water, Shanti Rajwada made her drink alcohol and Anupal and Gorelal took her inside the goat shed and committed sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that the victim came home in the evening on the day of the incident and slept at home. The next day, she got up in the morning and went to her maternal 7 CRA No.189/2021 uncle's house in village Chhindiya and stayed there for two-three days. After that, the victim returned her home with her maternal uncle. Thereafter, the victim told them about the incident at home. 11. Dr. Shikha Soni, (PW-5), who conducted the medical examination of victim and submitted a report vide Ex.P-11, in which, she found that there was old hild rupture hymen, two fingers could easily go into vagina. No injury marks were found internally and externally in the vagina and perineum. Menstrual cycle was delayed. 12. In the FSL report vide Ex.P-31, no semen stains or human sperms have been found in the vaginal slide and undergarments of the victim. 13. From the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear from the statement of victim (PW-1) that she herself on her own will, went inside the house of the appellant No.3 and there she drunk alcohol forcibly, after that, appellant Nos.1 and 2 committed sexual intercourse with her. When the appellants left the victim outside the house, neither she shout nor she told anyone about the incident. She has not made any complaint to anyone and has not raised any alarm for a long considerable period. Had she been forcefully raped her against her will or consent, she would definitely raised alarm or to make complaint to the anyone. Also, there is a delay of seven day in lodging the FIR. Moreover, there 8 CRA No.189/2021 are several material contradiction and omission in the court statement of prosecution and witnesses. 14. According to Dr. Shikha Soni (PW-5), no external or internal injuries found in the private parts of the victim and she has not given definite opinion that she was subjected to rape. Importantly, in the FSL report, no human sperm were found in the undergarments of victim and vaginal slide. 15. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges leveled against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 16. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 17. In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21/12/2020 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges leveled against 9 CRA No.189/2021 them. 18. Appellant No.3-Shanti Rajwade is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by her at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant No.3- Shanti Rajwade appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 19. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are in jail. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case, on each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as required under the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellants shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 20. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Judge Amardeep/Rahul