HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.A.No. 860 of 2005 Mutur Bargaha ---- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For State / Respondent : Shri Shailesh Puriya, P.L. . ______________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 10/06/2025 1. The challenge in this appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) is to the judgment dated 22/10/2005 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 256/2005. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for an offense punishable under section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine 03 months additional R.I. was imposed on the appellant. 2. Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on the date of incident i.e. 16/06/2005, when the prosecutrix was returning from Bario Bazaar to her home, the appellant held her hand and plunged her near the nursery at Village – Amripara and threatened her for dire consequences and committed forcibly sexual intercourse. He also threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. Prosecutrix (PW-1) informed about the incident to her mother and Sankur Miya resident of the Village ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.10 07:47:19 +0530 -2- and thereafter the report was lodged at Police Station – Ambikapur and the crime was registered. Prosecutrix was medically examined. The appellant was medically examined and was arrested. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C., Ambikapur, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, who made over the case to trial Court for trial. 4. The appellant was charged for an offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC. who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, examined 08 witnesses and exhibited as many as 11 documents. 6. By the judgment impugned, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated in the first paragraph of the judgment which is assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and she cannot be termed as a sterling witness. He further submits that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. He submits that there was previous enmity between the appellant and the father of prosecutrix, hence, a false report was lodged against the appellant. Therefore he prays that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from all charges. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecutrix in her statement before the learned 6trial Court has categorical deposed against the appellant and her solitary statement is sufficient enough to hold the conviction of the appellant. The learned trial Court on meticulous examination of the evidence available on record, recorded a finding of the conviction of the appellant which does not require any interference by this -3- Court. Appeal deserve to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record of impugned judgment. 10. It is trite law that the conviction of the appellant can sustain on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix provided it inspires confidence, credible, impeccable and is of sterling quality. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34 in paragraphs 6 and 7, it is observed and held as under: “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not sterling get swayed by minor contradictions or in significant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confdence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384] (SCC p. 403, para 21).] 7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving -4- sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635).” 12. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and ors., reported in (2019) 11 SCC 575 it is observed and held in paragraph 29 as under:- “29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confdence. [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283]. It is well- settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on 1corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the 1 (2019) 11 SCC 575 -5- evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. . [State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30].” to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. . [State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30].” 13. In a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 74, considering various case laws on the point that conviction can rest on the sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence held in paragraph 11 as under :- “11. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed here-in-above, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained.” 14. In case of Santosh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 406 cited by the counsel for the appellant the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “5.5 With the aforesaid decisions in mind, it is required to be considered, whether is it safe to convict the accused solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix? Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality?” 6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we fnd that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the examination- in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall accused came inside and thereafter the accused committed rape. She has stated that she identifed the accused from the light of -6- the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. Even nothing is on record that there was a broken compound wall. She has further stated that in the morning at 10 O’clock she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However, according to the investigating officer a written complaint was given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the prosecutrix has referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW1 and others. However, Shanti Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5 -prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. There is a delay in the FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect to land. The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the solitary version of the prosecutrix – PW5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt”. 10. . 15. In the light of above principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is well settled preposition of law that the accused can be convicted only on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found credible and inspires confidence without any further corroboration. The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) requires examination with great caution. This court has to see that the testimony of prosecutrix inspires confidence, is of high quality and caliber, on the face value acceptable, cannot create a doubt and is unassailable looking from any angle. The statement should pass the test of “sterling witness” as held in case of Santosh Prasad (Supra). Prosecutrix was examined as PW-1. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that she knows the appellant and about 06 months back she was coming back from Bario bazaar to her home at about 07:00PM. The appellant held her in the way and took her in the Nursery and plunged her there; removed her cloth and also his cloths and committed forcible sexual intercourse and threatened -7- for dire consequences. She further deposed that the incident was informed by her to her mother (PW-2), Raghuwar (not examined) and other neighbors. Thereafter, she lodged report, she was medically examined and her petticoat was seized. In the cross examination she stated that she is residing separately from her husband for about 15-16 years, her husband does not visit her. She stated that before the incident she does know the appellant and only knows him from the date of incident. No quarrel had taken place between her with or his family members. She is not made any report in the Police Station with regard to the quarrel. She shows ignorance that on account of the report made, a case under section 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. was lodged against the appellant and his family members or not. He denied the suggestions that she had relationship outside the marriage with the appellant and he used to visit her regularly. She denied the suggestion that she was forcing the appellant to keep her in his house and therefore, as a counter blast false report was lodged. She denied the appellant that she is falsely implicating the appellant. 16. Mother of the prosecutrix PW-2 stated in her in examination-in-chief that about 04- 05 months prosecutrix informed that while she was returning back from the bazaar, appellant held her and committed rape and report was lodged. In her cross examination she denies the suggestion that prior to the incident appellant used to visit her house. She admits that about 04-06 months prior to the incident appellant and his family members committed Maarpeet with her daughter. She admits that in respect to appellant and her daughter a Panchayat was convened. She further admits that in Panchayat, the appellant denied to keep her daughter with him. R.D.Pandey (PW-6) is the investigating officer in his statement paragraph-6, she had admitted that prior to the incident of rape a report was lodged by the prosecutrix for assault against the appellant in the Police Station and a proceeding under section 151 Cr.P.C. against the six persons including the appellant was drawn. -8- 17. Dr. Pamini Singh (PW- 8) who medically examined the prosecutrix and stated that no definite opinion with regard to rape could be given. No injury was found on the person of proisecutrix. She has prepared the slide of the prosecutrix. She gave her report in Ex.P/11. In her cross-examination, she admits that prosecutrix is habitual to sexual intercourse. 18. From the evidence brought by the prosecution it appears that the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief has categorically leveled allegations against the appellant. However, this Court has to ascertain as to whether the prosecution is speaking the truth or not. Initially in examination-in-chief the prosecutrix states that she knows the appellant, however in the cross examination she states that she does not know the appellant prior to the date of incident and only from the date of incident she knows him. She denied that there was any quarrel between the appellant or his family members with her. She further denied that she did not lodge any report and she also denied that because of that report, a case under section 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. was lodged or not. Whereas the prosecutrix mother (PW-2) categorically states that prior to 04 - 06 months of the incident appellant and his family member assaulted her daughter. She further states that a Panchayat was also convened in respect to appellant and her daughter in which the appellant has refused to keep her daughter. The medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution and surprisingly no F.S.L. report is available on record to suggest that there was any human sperms in the slide of the prosecutrix. A defense was taken by the appellant under 313 of Cr.P.C. statement that he has been falsely been implicated and prosecutrix under the influence of liquor had entered his house and quarreled with him. 19. Of Course, the conviction can sustain on the solitary statement in light of the above authoritative pronouncement but from the entirety of the evidence of prosecutrix coupled with medical report, it appears that she is not speaking the truth. Initially, she has denied about a prior quarrel with the appellant and lodging a report -9- against the appellant also. Initially, she stated that she knows the appellant but later on she says she only knows appellant from the date of incident. Rather from the statement of her mother (PW-2), it is quite clear that there was some dispute between the appellant and the prosecutrix, and Panchayat was also convened. Factum of previous enmity and quarrel in lodging of criminal case is also admitted by R.D. Pandey, investigating Officer (PW – 6). As stated above medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecutrix has failed to pass the test of sterling witness. Prosecution failed to establish it’s case beyond reasonable doubt and this Court is of the considered view that the prosecutrix statement cannot inspire confidence to convict the appellant. She cannot be termed as sterling witness in light of the judgment quoted above. Therefore, the appeal deserve to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all charges. 20. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of the provision of Section 481 of BNSS. 21. The record be sent back to the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish