1 2025:CGHC:14560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1086 of 2023 Judgment reserved on : 24.01.2025 Judgment delivered on : 26.03.2025 1 - Milan Chandrakar S/o Mangal Chandrakar Aged About 18 Years 04 Months, R/o - Village - Chherkadhih (G) Police Station - Pallari, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Pallari, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, 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 24.03.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge (FTC), Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in ST No.14/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with default RAMAKANT NIRALA Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA Date: 2025.03.27 14:11:14 +0530 2 stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12-11-2021 at about 5.00 am, the appellant met with the prosecutrix when she had gone for natur’s call and forcibly removed her under garments and fingered on her vagina and tried to commit sexual intercourse and while hearing her scream, Mongra Bai came on the spot and took the prosecutrix to nearby house of Kusum Bai and they disclosed the matter to the sarpanch and villagers, thereafter matter was reported to the police station concerned and F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant under section 375 of IP.C. The matter was investigated by the police, during the investigation the 164 statement was recorded. 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. The appellant is juvenile but he was treated major. PW-2 Mongra has stated that she is not confirm as to the person to whom she has seen looks like the appellant. The Learned Trail Court ought to have appreciated that the prosecutrix is a major lay aged about 23-24 years, and the appellant is 18 years' young boy thus 3 it could be easily presumed that the girl is over powered to the boy thus the possibility of such crime committed in the manner as alleged by the young appellant is might not possible. The learned Trial Court had not appreciated rather neglected the FSL report as well as chemical analysis report. The Learned Trail Court had not appreciated that the prosecutrix was having affair with another boy Dhiraj and the same was denied by her due to fear, as such the evidence of PW 1 is highly doubtful as there were so many people on the road for morning walk and the appellant is one of them, but all these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the learned Trial Court. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs State of Bihar, reported in 2020 Lawsuit (SC) 166, Mallappa and others vs State of Karnataka, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 and the judgments rendered by this Court in the matter of Narad @ Narendra Tamrakar vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2017 LawSuit (Chh) 1044 and Hemraj Chandrakar vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2017 LawSuit (Chh) 667. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 4 available on record. 6. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 376 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The prosecutrix (PW-1) stated in her examination-in-chief that on the date of incident on 12.11.2021 at about 5:30 in the morning, she had gone for nature’s call, then the accused forcefully caught hold her and inserted his finger in her vagina, at that time, Mongra Bai (PW-2) came then the accused ran away. 8. Mongra Bai (PW-2) stated that on the date of incident after hearing some noise she reached at the place of occurrence, then she saw the prosecutrix’s feet being tied with rope and when she asked her, then she told that the accused tried to commit rape on her by inserting his finger in her vagina. The prosecutrix declared her hostile and cross-examined her, but she denied this suggestion of prosecution that she had seen the accused, but she admitted this suggestion of the prosecution that the prosecutrix had told her that the accused had caught hold of her. 9. Santoshi Yadav (PW-3) stated that the prosecutrix had told her that some boy has committed rape with her. The prosecutrix declared her hostile and cross-examined her but she denied this suggestion that the prosecutrix had told her the name of the accused. PW-3 Santoshi Yadav, PW-4 Rajendra Kumar Yadav, 5 PW-5 Gendram Dhiwar, PW-6 Kusum Bai Dhiwar, PW-7 Nirmala Dhiwar all have stated that they had seen the torn cloth of the prosecutrix, but they all denied this suggestion of the prosecution that they were told the name of the accused by the prosecutrix. Dr. Meenal Kharat (PW-10) examined the prosecutrix on 12.11.2021 and found bleeding in her vagina. She found struggle of perforce actions on the body of the prosecutrix and gave her report (Ex-P/17). 10. The prosecutrix (PW-1) admitted in her cross-examination that it is true that in the morning people go for morning walk, but she denied this suggestion of defence that she is in love affair with another boy Dhiraj and she had gone with him. The prosecutrix remained firm in her cross-examination that the accused inserted finger in her vagina. Dr. Meenal (PW-10) also found bleeding and injuries in her private part and gave her report (Ex-P/17) and also referred all clothes for chemical examination vide Ex-P/18 and in the FSL report of the prosecutrix, her blood group O was found in her vaginal slide and clothes. Dr. Meenal also stated that as per blood test, the prosecutrix’s blood group was O, as such it is clear from the statement of the prosecutrix and the report of medical expert that injuries were found in private part body of the prosecutrix and also O blood group was found in her clothes. 11. As per the prosecutrix, the accused inserted finger into her vagina and as per Section 375 (b) of IPC, a man is said to commit rape, if he; 6 (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:—(First.)— Against her will. (Secondly.) — Without her consent. (Thirdly.) — With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt, (Fourthly.) — With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. (Fifthly.) — With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. (Sixthly.) — With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age. (Seventhly.) — When she is unable to communicate consent.” 12. The learned Trial Court also found the act of the accused under Section 375 (b) of IPC and the accused is guilty of rape and he was convicted as per Section 375 (b) of IPC and sentenced for 10 years RI. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per statement of Dr. Meenal (PW-10), the date of last months’ menstrual cycle period of the prosecutrix was 10.10.2021 and the date of medical examination of the prosecutrix was 12.11.2021, as such the bleeding in vagina can be because of monthly cycle, but it is evident from the record that no question was asked by the defence from the doctor in this regard. 7 14. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the entire evidence available on record, it is clear that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record as well as medical evidence, as such no interference is called for by this Court in the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16. 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 Nirala