1 2025:CGHC:29418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 349 of 2008 Judgment reserved on : 07.04.2025 Judgment delivered on : 01. 07.2025 Satyanarayan Yadav S/o Shri Roopnath Yadav, aged about 35 years, R/o Village- Darima, Police Station- Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station- Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent/State __________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui , Advocate. For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate. _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which has arisen out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Sessions Trial No. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 97/2008, Janjgir, Surguja District- Surguja (C.G.), 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 payment of fine of Rs.200/, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. Prosecution Story:- 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the date of the incident i.e., 27.11.2005 in the evening, the complainant/victim (PW-1) was in search of labourers for doing work in the field which is situated at Village- Narmadapur and in Bihipara and Bisepara, she had conversation with two persons namely Dalsai and Dabel with regard to the labour. When she was approaching towards Harijan Para School, at that time the appellant caught hold her and threw her on the ground, thereby he committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim, while committing the heinous crime, accused person threatened her to life and thereby, he fled from the spot. Thereafter, she narrated the whole incident to Shivkumari, Kamleshkumari, Ramvichar and Vijaynath and lodged an FIR against the appellant vide Ex. P/1. After obtaining the consent letter (Ex. P/2) from the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1), her medical examination was conducted by Dr. Sareeta Singh (PW-6) and gave her report vide Ex. P/8. Thereafter, the vaginal slide of the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1) was prepared. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/6, broken bangles were seized of the prosecutrix from the spot vide Ex. P/3 and statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant was arrested as per Ex. P/10. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, thereafter the matter was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge, SC & ST Act 3 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after registration of the Special Sessions Trial No. 97/2008, learned trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections 376 (1) and 506 (II) of IPC against the accused/appellant. 3. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and statement of complainant/victim (PW-1) was also recorded. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has also 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, he did not adduce any witness in his defence. 4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in inaugural paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. Submissions of the parties:- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is bad-in-law as well as facts available on record. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the Investigating Officer has accepted the fact that the complainant/victim (PW-1) has lodged the report of outraging her modesty only and also failed to consider this fact that the FIR (Ex. P/1) lodged by the complainant/victim (PW-1) after 19 days of the said incident i.e.. 27.11.2005. Learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the victim was the consenting party, as she concealed the place of the incident and there is no external and internal injury on victim’s body, however, it is clear that the statement of victim is not reliable and untrustworthy, 4 therefore, there is lacuna in the case of prosecution, yet the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant and therefore appellant is entitled for acquittal. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matter of Ghursai @ Amarnath vs. State of C.G., passed in CRA No. 1234/2003 and V. Rama Rao vs. State of C.G., passed in CRA No. 213 of 2004. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, however, learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, thereby rightly convicted the appellant for the alleged offence and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. Discussion and Analysis:- 8. It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellant for offence under Section 376 (1) of IPC read with Section 3 (2) (5) of SC & ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 506- II of IPC. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the appellant of the rest of the offences, but convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of IPC. 9. The complainant/victim (PW-01) has stated in her examination-in-chief that on the date of incident i.e. 27.11.2005 in the evening, she was in search of labourers for doing work in the field which is situated at Village- Narmadapur and in Bihipara and Bisepara, she had conversation with two persons namely Dalsai and Dabel with regard to the labour. When she was approaching towards Harijan Para School, at that time the appellant caught 5 hold her and threw her on the ground, thereby he committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim, while committing the heinous crime, accused person threatened her to life and thereby, he fled from the spot. Thereafter, she narrated the whole incident to Shivkumari, Kamleshkumari, Ramvichar and Vijaynath and lodged an FIR against the appellant vide Ex. P/1. In her cross-examination, she admitted this fact that at the place of incident that on noise being made, there is no such echo of it, per contra she stated that when noise being made it is audible to the persons nearby, however she denied the suggestion that she did not scream. Further, she also denied the suggestion that she did not give 50 rupees to the appellant for labour work. In para 17 of her cross-examination, she lodged an FIR for rape against the appellant before the police station, but she has no clue as to why the police lodged an FIR for outraging her modesty. 10. It is evident from an FIR (Ex. P/1) that in para 1, whitener was used and as per Ex.P/1, the date of incident is 27.11.2005, but the date of lodging an FIR is mentioned as 16.12.2005, though due to the fear of the accused, there was delay in lodging the FIR by the victim. 11. Dalsai (PW-2) has not supported the statement of the complainant/victim (PW-1). Ramvichar (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has declared him hostile and cross-examined him, though, he denied all suggestions of the prosecution. He also denied the police’s statement i.e. Ex. P/5. Further, he admitted the suggestion of defence that the complainant/victim (PW-1) had lodged a false report of rape against one Umashankar, which was found to be false on investigation. 12. Smt. Kamlesh Kumari (PW-4), who is daughter-in-law of the complainant/victim (PW-1) has stated in her examination-in-chief that the complainant/victim had told her that the accused committed forcible sexual 6 intercourse with her. She admitted this fact in her cross-examination that accused assaulted her mother-in-law. Further, she admitted this fact that had if the accused apologized us for beating on that day in village-Kotara, we would not have taken any action against him. 13. Dr. Sareeta Singh (PW-6), who examined the complainant/victim (PW-1) on 19.12.2005 stated that she did not find any external injuries as well as internal injuries on victim’s body and she opined that victim was habitual of sexual intercourse, however, she was not able to opine regarding whether the victim underwent to any recent sexual intercourse and gave her report Ex. P/8. 14. C.D. Tandon (PW-7) had admitted this fact in cross-examination that the victim had lodged a report of molestation only. 15. Udaynath (PW-8) and Vijay Nath (PW-9) have not supported the prosecution case. 16. Gopal Vaishya, Investigating Officer (PW-11) has also admitted this fact in para 5 of his cross-examination that the victim lodged the report after 20 days of the said incident, also admitted this fact that first time he lodged report on 28.11.2005, on that date the victim did not disclose about the forcible sexual intercourse, however, her statements are full of contradictions and omissions. Further, admitted this fact that after 20 days, FIR was lodged vide Ex. P/1 for offence under Section 376 of IPC and he lodged first complaint of victim, which was written in Rojnamcha Sanha, but copy of the same has not been filed by him alongwith charge-sheet. 17. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra,1 this Court reiterated that the 1 (2006) 10 SCC 92 7 sole testimony of the prosecutrix could be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the Court: “9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen.” 18. In the light of above judgment, in the present case also, it is quite evident that F.I.R. lodged by the complainant/victim (PW-01) after 20 days of the incident and also no satisfactory explanation was offered by the victim regarding the delay of lodging the FIR, it is also admitted by Investigating Officer (PW-11) that first he lodged the report only for outraging her modesty and after 20 days of the said incident, he lodged an FIR for forcible sexual intercourse. However, medical officer (PW-6) has not supported the prosecution case and complainant’s daughter- in- law (PW-4) has stated in her deposition that had if the accused apologized us for beating on that day in village-Kotara, we would not have taken any action against him. 19. In these circumstances, it is quite evident from evidence of complainant/victim (PW-1) that she is not sterling witness and applying the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the solitary version in the examination in chief of the complainant/victim (PW-1) cannot be taken gospel truth on its face value, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact while recording the finding of conviction. It is clear that prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, findings recorded by learned Trial Court 8 being perverse are not sustainable in the eye of law. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. He be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. 21.The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 22. 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