1 2025:CGHC:45249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1097 of 2024 Shital Cherva, S/o. Ramprasad Cherva, aged about 27 years, R/o. Village Kenapara, Police Station Jaynagar, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through : SHO P.S. Bhatgaon Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) -----Respondent For Appellant : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu ORDER ON BOARD 04.09.2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality and sustainability of impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2023, in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2022, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur convicted appellant for offence under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and for offence U/s. 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.26 10:28:03 +0530 2 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that on the date of incident i.e. on 22.07.2022, while prosecutrix was sleeping in her room at around 12:15 a.m., she heard a sound coming from roof sheet of her house. When she tried to open the door of her room, she found it locked from outside. Thereafter, she again heard sound of roof sheet breaking, and appellant by broking roof sheet entered in to the house of prosecutrix, caught hold of her hair and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her against her will and also threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident. On the next day, incident was reported to the concerned police station based upon which FIR (Ex.P- 1) was lodged against appellant. Prosecutrix was medically examined by the doctor vide (Ex.P-4), spot map (Ex.P-2) was prepared. Applicant was arrested and his physical examination was conducted vide (Ex.P-5). Statements of witnesses U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed, before Court of competent jurisdiction. 3. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 450 and 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant denied the charges. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely (P.W.-1) prosecutrix, Kalawati (P.W.-2), Suresh Kumar (P.W.-3), Dr. Seema Guipta (P.W.-4), Dr. Ratan Prasad Minj (P.W.-5), Ramdev Yadav (P.W.-6), Samelal (P.W.-7), Radheshyam (P.W.-8), Aradhna Banode (P.W.-9) and Brijmohan Gupta, ASI/Investigation Officer as (P.W.-10). Prosecution exhibited 14 documents. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and 3 false implication. No witness was examined in defence. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court convicted appellant for commission of offences and sentenced him as mentioned here-in- above. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The impugned judgment of conviction passed against appellant is without proper appreciation of evidence available on record. As per allegation, victim at the time of incident, in attempt to save herself gave blow to appellant by means of the wooden plank, however, it did not hit to appellant but it hit to mirror on the opposite wall, however, no broken glasses were seized by police. She further contended that as per allegation, appellant came broking through sheet of roof, however, in the charge-sheet, prepared by police during course of investigation, there is no mention that sheet of roof was found broken, which makes the case of prosecution suspicious. She submits that on the date of accident, appellant went to house of complainant asking her to return the money borrowed by her and victim in order to avoid liability of borrowed amount, had falsely implicated the appellant in a fabricated case. 5. Learned counsel for State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and would submit that immediately after incident, victim made a phone call to Radheshyam (P.W.-8), who is her neighbour. Radheshyam, in his evidence corroborated the version of victim, stating that around 1:30 AM, victim called him and narrated the incident and thereafter in the morning he went to the house of victim. He also pointed out that Dr. Seema Gupta (P.W.-4) supported the case 4 of prosecution. In her testimony, she stated that upon examining victim, she found that victim had been subjected to recent sexual intercourse. He next contended that it has also come in the evidence of Brijmohan Gupta (P.W.-10), who is investigating officer that FSL report was also found positive vide (Ex.P-13). Learned trial Court upon appreciating the entire material and evidence available on record, have rightly convicted appellant for offences and sentenced him as mentioned above, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of trial Court. 7. Prosecution to prove the charges levelled against appellant examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. Prosecutrix was examined as (P.W.-1). She stated in her testimony that appellant resided in her neighborhood and used to work as a labourer. On 22 July 2022, at about 12:15 p.m., while she was resting at home after taking food and medication, she heard a noise coming from the roof. Upon checking, she found that main door had been locked from the outside. At that moment, appellant broke roof of house, entered the room, forcibly pressed her face against the wall, threw her to the ground, tore her clothing, and committed sexual assault against her. She further stated that despite her refusal, appellant did not stop and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. She further stated that after incident, she informed about incident to father of Kamaljeet, living in neighborhood and also informed her brother Radheshyam, uncle Samaylal and sister Kalawati and brother-in-law Suresh. She further stated that on his complaint 5 made to Police Station Bhatgaon, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against appellant. Her consent was taken for her physical examination vide (Ex.P-3). During cross-examination, she categorically denied all adverse suggestions put forth by the defence counsel. She specifically refuted the allegation that she had borrowed a sum of ₹3,000 from appellant. Furthermore, she denied that, when appellant allegedly came to her residence in the evening to recover the said amount, she refused to repay him and threatened to falsely implicate him in a criminal case. 8. Version of victim was supported by Kalawati (P.W.-2) and Suresh Kumar (P.W.-3), who are her sister and brother-in-law (Jija). In their evidence, they stated that on 22.07.2022 about 2 o’clock in the night, prosecutrix made a phone call to Suresh Kumar (P.W.-3) and informed them about incident and the wrongful act committed by appellant. A similar statement was given by Samelal (P.W.-7), who stated that on the date of the incident, he was informed by the victim, as well as her daughter and son-in-law, about the offence committed by the appellant. Radheshyam (P.W.-8) stated that after being informed about the incident by the victim, he went to her house in the morning. There, he observed that the roof sheet had been removed, glass items inside the house were broken, and other belongings were scattered around. He also noticed redness like injury on the neck of victim. He further stated that he, along with some other, took the victim to Bhatgaon Police Station to lodge a report. There is nothing on record that casts any doubt or raises any substantial contradiction to disbelieve the version of events as stated by the witnesses. Their statements remain 6 consistent, credible, and unshaken during cross-examination, and no material evidence has come on record to disbelieve or discredit their testimony. 9. Dr. Seema Gupta (P.W.-4) medically examined victim and found her to be mentally and physically healthy and fit. Her secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed, and no external injury marks were observed on her body. However, upon internal examination, the doctor noted vaginal bleeding. She prepared two vaginal slides and advise chemical tests. Based on her examination, she opined that there is recent sexual intercourse with the victim and gave her report (Ex.P-4). Dr. Ratan Prasad Minj (P.W.-5), has also stated in his evidence that upon conducting medical examination, found appellant to be healthy and capable of performing sexual intercourse and gave his report (Ex.P-5.). 10. Investigating Officer/Sub-Inspector Brijmohan Gupta (P.W.-10), in his evidence apart from the steps taken during the investigation such as registration of the FIR based on information of victim, preparation of spot map of the crime scene, recording statements of witnesses, and completing other necessary procedures also stated that during genital examination, female doctor sealed vaginal slides and handed them over to a female constable. When presented by the constable, he seized sealed packet in presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-8. The sealed slides were then sent to the Joint Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur, through the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, for chemical examination (vide Ex.P-12). He further proved FSL report (Ex.P-13) which was subsequently received confirming the 7 presence of human sperm on the vaginal slides taken from the prosecutrix/victim. 11. Statement of appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he only stated that he was falsely implicated in the crime and no other explanation is offered by him. The testimony of material witnesses i.e. prosecutrix (P.W.1), mother of prosecutrix (P.W.- 2) and father of prosecutrix (P.W.-3) inspires confidence and there is no reason on record to disbelieve their testimony. 12. The evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated at par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. The test to believe the story narrated by prosecutrix is whether it prima facie inspires confidence upon considering the entire evidence available in record. 13. In the case at hand, this Court has discussed the statement of prosecutrix (P.W.-1), Kalawati (PW-2) and Suresh Kumar (P.W.-3) though are relative but residing in nearby house, have stated that immediately after happening of incident with her, victim made phone call in night at about 2.00 AM. When Kalawati (P.W.-2) went to house of victim in next morning, found articles scattered in home. Doctor found that victim was subjected to recent sexual intercourse. The incident is in the intervening night of 23.07.2022 to 24.07.2022 and she was examined on 24.07.2022. FSL report with respect to vaginal slides sent to forensic expert was reported to be positive to be human sperm. 8 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S. Ramkrishna Vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 133 has observed in para 11, which reads as under :- “11. The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW 1) shows that she has described the manner in which the rape was committed on her. Apart from that PW 1 has stated that on the way she had met PWs 3 and 4 to whom she had mentioned about the incident. That was in addition to the information given to her mother, PW 2. The stand of the appellant in the instant case was that there was no corroboration with the evidence of the prosecutrix. “16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘the Evidence Act’) nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding, the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless 9 the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” The aforesaid position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [(1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 210] , at SCC p. 559, para 16, Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [(1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977] and Narayan Saha v. State of Tripura [(2004) 7 SCC 775 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 410].” 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Vs. State of U.P., reported in (1980) 4 SCC 262 has held in para 5 & 7, which is as under :- “5. We do not agree. For one thing, Pratap Misra case [(1977) 3 SCC 41 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 447 : AIR 1977 SC 1307] laid down no inflexible axiom of law on either point. The facts and circumstances often vary from case to case, the crime situation and the myriad psychic factors, social conditions and people's life-styles may fluctuate, and so, rules of prudence relevant in one fact- situation may be inept in another. We cannot accept the argument that regardless of the specific circumstances of a crime and criminal milieu, some strands of probative reasoning which appealed to a Bench in one reported decision must mechanically be extended to other cases. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is not a matter of law, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Indeed, from place to place, from age to age, from varying life-styles and behavioural complexes, inferences from a given set of facts, oral and circumstantial, may have to be drawn not with dead uniformity but realistic diversity lest rigidity in the shape of rule of law in this area be introduced through a new type of precedential tyranny. The same observation holds good regarding the presence or absence of injuries on the person of the aggressor or the aggressed. 7. Hardly a sensitized Judge who sees the conspectus of circumstances in its totality and rejects the testimony of a rape victim unless there are very strong 10 circumstances militating against its veracity. None we see in this case, and confirmation of the conviction by the courts below must, therefore, be a matter of course. Judicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal bigotry.” 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Santosh Moolya & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 445 has observed in para 17 and 19, which reads as under :- “17. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the courts must always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. (Vide Rajinder v. Sate of H.P. [(2009) 16 SCC 69 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 156 : JT (2009) 9 SC 9] ) 19. From the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, owner of the quarry, PW 4 and mother of the victim, PW 14, we are satisfied that though there was a delay of 42 days in lodging the complaint, the same was properly explained by the victims and the other witnesses. In addition to the same, we have also noticed that except the victims, no male member is available in their family to help them. In fact they came to the village where the incident occurred to eke out their livelihood. Further, PWs 1 and 2 asserted that after committing rape A-1 and A-2 threatened that they would kill them if they informed anyone. All these material aspects were duly considered by the trial court and accepted by the High Court. We concur with the same.” 17. The submission of learned counsel for appellant that the prosecution did not collect the broken mirror or roof sheet does not weaken the main allegations against appellant in the light of evidence available. While such evidence could have added to the investigation, its absence does not damage the overall case, which is supported by 11 strong and consistent testimony of the victim (P.W.-1). Her statement remained firm during cross-examination and there is no contradiction or exaggeration in her statement. Further there is nothing on record to suggest that she consented to the act or that her statement is unreliable. Her version is further supported by medical and forensic reports, as well as by other witnesses, making the case credible and convincing. 18. From overall scrutiny of evidence it is clear that on the date of incident, prosecutrix was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse. The testimony of prosecutrix is consistent, and credible, which is further corroborated by her close relatives and neighbors Kalawati (P.W.-2), Suresh Kumar (P.W.-3), Samelal (P.W.-7) and Radheshyam (P.W.-8), further supported by medical evidence indicating recent sexual intercourse vide (Ex.P-4), and further confirmed by the forensic report (Ex.P-13) establishing the presence of human sperm on the vaginal slides, the prosecution has successfully established the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 19. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram