1 2025:CGHC:25888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 305 of 2010 1 – Santlal, S/o Baiga Gond, Aged about 37 years, R/o Dubhapani, P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anshu Ratre, advocate on behalf of Mr. Manish Sharma, advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 19/06/2025 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2010 passed by learned 2 Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District- Koria (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 97/2007 whereby, the trial court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 342 of IPC R.I. for 1 year U/s 506(B) of IPC R.I. for 3 years U/s 376 of IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 3 months 2. Facts of the case, in nut shell, are that on 28.05.2007 at about 1.00 p.m., the accused Santlal and Keshghan Bai came to the in- laws house of the prosecutrix in Village- Karwa and the accused/appellant told the prosecutrix that her father Dev Singh was very ill and had called her. At that time, the husband of the prosecutrix namely Krishna Gond, had gone to the jungle to do the work and her mother-in-law had gone to collect wood. The prosecutrix, after informing her brother-in-law Dev Kumar, took her son Virendra (one year old) and left with the accused/appellant to go to her maternal home in Village- Jampani. Keshghan Bai (Smt. Aditya Bai) left for her home on the way. The accused/appellant instead of taking the prosecutrix to her father's house in Village Jampani, took her to his house in Village- Dubhapani and 3 confined her in his house. When she opposed, the accused threatened to kill her and her child. The accused kept her locked in the house and had sexual intercourse with her from 28.05.2007 to 08.06.2007. On 09.06.2007, her husband Krishna Gond came looking for the prosecutrix. On seeing him, the accused fled away from there. The prosecutrix informed her husband about the incident and thereafter, lodged a report at Police Station- Baikunthpur. On the basis of said report, offence punishable under Sections 342, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. During investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was done. Seizures were made. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was arrested on 11.06.2007. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur. Vide its order dated 19.09.2007, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur has committed the case to this Court for trial. Learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 342, 506(B) and 376 of IPC to which, he abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. In his defence, the appellant examined 4 one witness namely Vijay Bahadur Singh as D.W.-1. 4. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 13.04.2010, finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted the appellant under Sections 342, 506(B) & 376 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, facts & circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the version of the prosecutrix itself proves that she was the consenting party. The learned trial Court ought to have considered that the prosecution has failed to produce any admissible evidence against the appellant. The complaint has been lodged as the husband of the prosecutrix had pressurized her for the same. The aforesaid inference is further strengthened by the medical report of Dr. Shalini Sharma (P.W.- 8) and according to which, there is no evidence of forceful sexual intercourse. The learned trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the allegation of the prosecutrix has been totally contradicted by the medical evidence and other circumstantial evidences. The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The impugned judgment suffers from material illegality and deserves to be set aside by this Court. 5 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the conviction and sentence is well merited and do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 342, 506(B) and 376 of IPC against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. 9. In her examination-in-chief, prosecutrix (P.W.-11) stated that on the date of incident, at around 2:00 a.m., the accused/appellant along with one woman (Panditain) came to her in-laws house and asked her to come to her parental house as her father is ill. At that time, her husband went to work and her brother-in-law was at home. She told her brother-in-law that she was going to her parental home with the accused/appellant and woman. On the way, the woman went to her home and the accused instead of taking her to her parental house, took her to his house where he kept her for 3 days and committed rape on her. After 3 days, when her husband came there then she narrated the whole incident to him. In para 11 of her cross-examination, she admitted that she 6 stayed in the house of the accused for 3 days. She further admitted that she went outside to answer nature’s call but she did not tell anyone that accused kept her with him forcibly. In para 14, she also admitted that the accused did not keep her tied. She voluntarily stated that he kept her confined. In para 15, she admitted that she removed her clothes herself as accused said to her and she did so as the accused said to her. In para 18, she admitted that she did not raise any alarm out of fear at the time of commission of rape with her by the accused/appellant. In para 19, she admitted that if her husband had not come then she had gone to her parental house, she would not have filed the report against the appellant. 10. In his examination-in-chief, husband of the prosecutrix (P.W.-12) stated that when he came to Village- Jampani after 3 days, his wife was not there, then he went to the house of the accused/appellant and found her wife in the house of the appellant. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution. In para 12 of his cross-examination, he admitted that on the insistence of people, he brought his wife to police station to lodge the report. He further admitted that if the villagers had not come 7 with them, they would not have lodged the report and would have gone to their home back. 11. Close scrutiny of the evidence of prosecutrix (P.W.-11) and her husband (P.W.-12) makes it clear that the prosecutrix is a married lady of 20 years old and also a mother of one child. The conduct of the prosecutrix clearly shows that she went with the appellant/accused at her own sweet will and live with him for 3 days. Prosecutrix (P.W.-11) and her husband (P.W.-12) also admitted this suggestion of defence that if the villagers had not come with them, they would not have lodged the report against the appellant. The learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and only found that the accused/appellant detained the prosecutrix illegally in his house and by extending the threat, committed sexual intercourse with her, and thereby convicted the appellant for the said offence. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are not sustainable. 12. Looking to the oral and documentary evidence of this case, it is clear that conduct of the prosecutrix is doubtful. Thus, prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. He deserves to be acquitted of the said charge by giving him benefit of doubt. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 342, 506(B) and 376 of IPC cannot be 8 legally sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 13.04.2010 is set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the alleged offences. 14. 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. 15.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 Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV