1 Reserved on 28/04/2025 Delivered on 24/07/2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 81 of 2019 1. Krishna Singh S/o Jagnarayan Singh, aged about 30 Years 2. Jugesh Singh S/o Raj Kumar, aged about 19 Years 3. Ramvichar Singh S/o Shiv Lal, aged about 27 Years 4. Man Singh S/o Shiv Sharan, aged about 22 Years All R/o village Marma Dhodhipara, Police Out Post Dindo, P.S. Trikunda, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Police Station Trikunda, Police Out Post Dindo, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant (s) : Shri Vikas Pandey and Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocates For Respondent /State : Mrs. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer DB: Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Judgment This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, 2 District– Balrampur, Ramanujganj (CG) in Sessions Trial No. R. 109/2014 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 342 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month Under Section 376-D of I.P.C R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year Both the sentences to run concurrently 3. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the prosecutrix (PW1) at the relevant time was studying in Class 12. On 08.08.2004 at about 5:30 PM, she had gone to the grocery shop of Jugesh Singh (appellant No.2) to buy incense stick and shampoo where, apart from Jugesh Singh, accused/appellants Maan Singh, Krishna Singh and Ramvichar Singh were also present. When the prosecutrix (PW1) asked accused/appellant Jugesh to give her incense stick and shampoo, he asked her to wait for some time, which she did accordingly. Thereafter, accused/appellant Maan Singh took her inside the room of the shop and then accused/appellant Jugesh bolted the door. Accused/appellant Maan Singh then tied her hands with her scarf. When prosecutrix started crying, accused/appellant Maan Singh gagged her mouth with a handkerchief, made her lie down, and after removing her clothes committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, accused/appellants Krishna, Ramvichar and Jugesh also committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one after the other. At about 8 PM, she was taken out of the house and accused/appellant Maan Singh took her to Kusum Ghutra Jungle and there also he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in the night. On the next day, he took her under a rock. Thereafter, at about 12 PM accused/appellants 3 Krishna Singh and Ramvichar Singh came there with lunch. After taking lunch, accused/appellants Ramvichar and Krishna again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Accused/appellant Maan Singh kept her there with him and in the night also he again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On 10.08.2014 in the morning, accused/appellant Maan Singh took the prosecutrix from the jungle and after dropping her near her house, he fled away. The incident was reported by the prosecutrix to her parents. Thereafter, the father of the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to Surajnath, Devsai and Manraj, and on their advice the report was lodged by her, on which crime No. 0/2014 was registered at police Chowki Dindo under Sections 342, 376(2)(g) IPC. Subsequently, Crime No. 39/2014 was registered at Police Station Trikunda under the same sections. Spot map (Ex.P-4) was prepared; after obtaining the consent of the prosecutrix and that of her father she was medically examined vide report Ex. P-10. After recording the police statements of the witnesses and making seizure of undergarments and vaginal slides of the prosecutrix, and thus completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under the same sections as in the FIR followed by framing of charge accordingly. During the course of trial, accused/appellant – Maan Singh was also arrested and he was also charged as stated above. Accused/appellants however denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC where they claimed their innocence and false implication in the case. 7. Trial Court, having gone through the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as described above. Hence this 4 appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that conviction of the appellants is bad in law as the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix is not credible and trustworthy to form the basis of conviction of the accused/appellants. They further submitted that FIR was lodged after delay of about 3 days and no proper explanation has been offered for the same. It is further submitted that during the period when the prosecutrix was kept by the accused/appellants, no missing report was lodged. They submitted that even the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. According to the counsel for the accused/appellants, it has come in the record that the prosecutrix had an affair with accused/appellant Maan Singh and therefore she cannot be said to have been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. It is submitted that the accused/appellants Krishna Singh, Jugesh Singh and Ramvichar Singh being friends of Maan Singh have been falsely implicated in the case. Lastly it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the accused/appellants may be acquitted of the charge leveled against them. In support of their submissions, they placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 2020 SC 985 and also on the judgment of this Court rendered in Cr.A.No.212/2005 (Bhola Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh). 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that in order to sustain conviction of the accused/appellants, solitary statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient if it is found credible, impeccable, trustworthy and of sterling quality. She further submits that the prosecutrix in her evidence has categorically stated as to the manner in which 5 she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused/appellants one after the other and how she was kept in jungle, the finding recorded by the trial Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference in this appeal. As regards delay in lodging the report, she submits that in a crime against woman, such delay depends on so many circumstances including due deliberation in the family as to her reputation in the society the small delay of three days cannot be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution. She thus submits that the judgment impugned is well reasoned and based on due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, therefore, it does not need any interference in this appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 11. Prosecutrix (PW-1) states to know all the accused/appellants in this case. On 08.08.2004 at about 5 - 5:30 PM, she had gone to the grocery shop of Jugesh Singh (appellant No.2) to buy incense stick and shampoo where apart from Jugesh Singh, accused/appellants Maan Singh, Krishna Singh and Ramvichar Singh were already present. When the prosecutrix (PW1) asked accused/appellant Jugesh to give her incense stick and shampoo, he asked her to wait for some time, which she did accordingly. After about 10 minutes, accused/appellant Maan Singh caught hold of her, took her inside the room of the shop and then accused/appellant Jugesh bolted the door. She has stated that accused/appellant Maan Singh then tied her hands with her scarf. When she started crying, accused/appellant Maan Singh gagged her mouth with a handkerchief for which she could not raise an alarm. Thereafter, accused Maan Singh made her lie down, and after removing her clothes committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, accused/appellants Krishna, Ramvichar and Jugesh also committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one after the other. By then it was about 8 O’clock in the night. According to this witness, she was then taken out of the house and 6 appellant/appellant Maan Singh took her to Kusum Ghutra Jungle and there also he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that the accused/appelalnt did the said act in spite of her resistance. On the next day, at about 12 PM accused/appellants Krishna Singh and Ramvichar Singh had come there with lunch. After taking lunch, accused/appellants Ramvichar and Krishna again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and then went away. Accused/appellant Maan Singh however held her back with him and in the night also he again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On 10.08.2014 in the morning, accused/appellant Maan Singh took the prosecutrix from the jungle and after dropping her near her house, he ran away. The incident was first disclosed by her to her mother, who in turn disclosed the same to her father. Thereafter, her father disclosed the incident to Surajnath, Devsai and Manraj etc. and then a Panchayat meeting was convened where except accused Maan Singh other three accused/appellants had come and thereafter on the advice of the villagers the report was lodged by her. According to this witness, her age at that time was about 18 years. Accused/appellant Maan Singh is stated to have gone absconding after the incident. In cross examination she has stated that she was in the shop till 8:00 PM and all throughout her mouth was stuffed with handkerchief. Now she states that while being taken from the shop, accused/appellant Maan Singh had removed the handkerchief. Then she states that accused/appellant Maan Singh had threatened her of being beaten if she did something otherwise. She has admitted that after handkerchief was removed from her mouth, she did not raise any alarm on account of threat of the accused/appellant Maan Singh. She has then stated that since her chastity was already robbed, her cries even if raised, would not be of any avail. She has further admitted that while being taken to the jungle she did not raise any alarm because if she had done that, villagers might have captured her. 7 According to her, in the jungle accused/appellant Maan Singh had not made her captive, but at the same time he did not let her go. She has reiterated that on account of being threatened, she did not raise an alarm. In re-examination, this witness has stated that she was kept in jungle for two nights. She has stated that when she had gone to the house of the accused/appellant, people used to come and go and that she had raised an alarm also. Though she has stated that during the incident she had suffered injury but could not point out any specific one except complaining of pain. 12. Rajeshwar (PW-2) - the father of the prosecutrix has stated that he came to know through his wife (PW-3) that his daughter (prosecutrix) was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused/appellants, first in the shop of accused/appellant Jugesh and then in the jungle. He however has stated that the prosecutrix did not inform about the injury. Smt. Nirpati (PW-3) – mother of the prosecutrix has stated that after the prosecutrix returned home, she informed her about her ravishment by the accused/appellants, first in the shop of accused/appellant Jugesh and then in the jungle. This witness however has stated that she did not see any injury mark on the body of prosecutrix nor her clothes torn. Manraj (PW-5) has though expressed his ignorance about any affair between the prosecutrix and accused/appellant Maan Singh yet he has admitted that they both had eloped. 13. Dr. Sneh Lata Tirki (PW-7) is the witness who medically examined the prosecutrix and gave her report (Ex.P-10). She has stated that secondary sexual characters of the prosecutrix were fully developed, that her hymen was absent, that she was not habitual to sexual intercourse, but no definite opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse could be given. She has stated that there was no external 8 or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix, nor any mark of resistance was there. Tikeshwar Yadav (PW-8) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. Underwear and vaginal slides of the prosecutrix and the underwear of accused Krishna and Jugesh were sent for chemical examination but no semen or spermatozoa was found on any one of them as is evident from FSL report (Ex.P-27). 14. The evidence of the witnesses as also the judgment impugned has thus been subjected to minute analysis. It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix, on the date of incident, was 18 years of age. The prosecutrix is stated to have gone to the shop of accused/appellant Jugesh on 08.08.2024 at about 5:00 – 5:30 PM to buy the incense stick and shampoo, and about 10 minutes thereafter, accused/appellant Maan Singh took her inside the room. Accused/appellant Jugesh then bolted the door, and accused/appellant Maan Singh tied her hands with her scarf. When she tried to raise an alarm, he gagged her mouth with handkerchief. Accused/appellant Maan Singh then made her lie down, removed her clothes and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, followed by accused Krishna, Ramvichar and Jugesh one after the other. On the same day, at about 8:00 PM she was taken to jungle by accused/appellant Maan Singh and there also he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Not only this, on the next day other accused persons came to jungle with lunch and they too took their turn again in making sex with her. Record also reveals that the next night i.e. the night of 09.08.2014 was also spent by the prosecutrix in the jungle with accused/appellant Maan Singh. In the morning of 10.08.2014 she was dropped by him near her house. Record also goes to show that after the prosecutrix returned home, she informed her mother about the incident and then her mother informed the same to her father. Thereafter, her father convened a Panchayat meeting and the when the matter could not be 9 resolved over there, the lodgment of reported was resorted to. What is important to take note of is that prosecutrix herself has stated that while being taken to jungle she did not raise any alarm for the reason that the villagers might have held her back. This clearly indicates that the prosecutrix had willingly accompanied the accused/appellant Maan Singh. The factum of prosecutrix readily accompanying the accused/appellant Maan Singh further gets strengthened from the statement of Manraj (PW-5) who has admitted in his evidence that accused/appellant Maan Singh and the prosecutrix had eloped. Further, the prosecutrix is stated to have been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by four persons but as per the medical evidence no injury either internal or external was noticed on her body. Even the FSL report does not support the case of the prosecution as no semen or sperm was found on the clothes and vaginal slides sent for chemical examination. 15. As the case of the prosecution mainly rests on the testimony of the victim (PW-1), it must be of sterling quality as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 wherein it has been observed as to who can be said to be a “sterling witness”, which has been recently followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar reported in (2020) 2 S.C.R. 798. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) has held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the 10 statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged. 11 16. If facts of the present case are seen in light of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that victim (PW-1) right from the beginning i.e. in the shop of accused Jugesh and then in the jungle for two nights, the prosecutrix had sex with accused/appellant Maan Singh consensually and out of her own sweet will. As regards other accused/appellants, from the evidence of the prosecutrix herself, it is established that when she had gone to the shop of accused Jugesh, they were already present there. Further, the matter was first tried to be settled in the Panchayat meeting convened at the behest of the father of the prosecutrix, but for whatever reason that did not happen. For all this, the possibility of their false implication in the case cannot be obviated. This Court therefore has no hesitation to hold that the victim has failed to pass the test of being a “sterling witness” as propounded by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra). In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be absolutely unsafe and unwholesome to sustain the conviction of the appellants and, therefore, they are entitled for acquittal by extending benefit of doubt. 17. In view of above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2018 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. The appellants are in jail. Let they be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along-with the original record be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. / Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Deepti/J AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.07.24 16:31:06 +0530