1 CRA No. 47 of 2022 2025:CGHC:40410-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 47 of 2022 Radhelal Manhare S/o Late Ramchandra Manhare, Aged About 63 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Dumar, Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent/State: Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 12.08.2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.14 18:46:54 +0530 2 CRA No. 47 of 2022 sentence dated 27.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court), District Durg C.G. in S.T. No. 49/2019 whereby the appellant has been sentence and convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 (2) (F) of the IPC Imprisonment for life (which to mean that appellant would serve with his re- maining life with R.I.) and fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine,additional R.I. for one year. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix, who is a septuagenarian, (mother of the appellant), lives in village Doomar, and has two sons, both of whom live separately in the neighbourhood, being old, she used to live with her younger son (PW-2) at his house, on 11.1.2019, her younger son (PW-2) along with his two sons went to visit his sister's house in village Uslapur, Dhamtari. She was at home with her grand daughter (PW-5), when her elder son Radhelal (appellant) who lived next to their house called her to his house for dinner on 14.1.2019 at around 9-10 p.m., and when she went to the house of the appellant/ elder son, he forced her to consume alcohol, but she refused to consume alcohol, so he forcibly made her drink alcohol, after that he tried to do bad things with her, when the victim refused, the accused pressed her mouth and when she screamed, he threatened to kill her and forcibly did bad things i.e. robbed her dignity. Thereafter, 3 CRA No. 47 of 2022 she came to her younger son's house out of fear and slept, in the morning she told her grand daughter about the incident and when younger son (PW-2) came back to the village, the FIR was lodged and case was registered against the accused in the Police Station Nandini Nagar. and thereafter the offence was registered and appellant was framed with charges and trial was commenced. 3. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. He has examined 2 witnesses in his defense i.e. wife DW-1 and daughter DW-2. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the whole prosecution story is based on surmises and conjectures. He further submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to family dispute. He further submits that the prosecutrix is septuagenarian 4 CRA No. 47 of 2022 and she is the mother of the appellant and as such the allegation of rape is not at all acceptable. The allegations of rape is not supported by the medical evidence. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the statement of the victim and other witnesses are fully reliable. There are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant is guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant which does not require for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Victim (PW-1), stated in her evidence that the incident took place in January. She stated that her second son Roop Kumar had gone out with his family. On the date of the incident, she had eaten dinner at 10:00 pm and went to sleep. The accused called her for dinner and closed the front door. When she asked him, why is he closing the door, he said that he had closed it because dog may enter the house. She further stated that she did not like his activities, so, she 5 CRA No. 47 of 2022 said, out of fear, that she refused to his request. Thereafter, the accused forcibly made her drink alcohol then the accused pushed her on the bed and climbed on her and raped her forcefully. She further stated the she kept screaming but no one heard her. Being old aged she did not have enough strength in her body to stop him. She kept pleading with folded hands to the accused to leave her, but the accused did not listen to her. In her cross examination she has accepted the suggestion that there was family dispute due to property and further she has also accepted the suggestion that she can not properly see in the night and there was darkness in the room of the appellant. 9. PW-2 younger son of the victim deposed that on the date of alleged incident he was out of station. He in his cross-examination stated that there is a dispute between the brothers for the last 10 years due to property and loan of Rs. 50,000/- due to which quarrel took place between them. PW-3 Kotwar stated that in his statement that there was frequent dispute between the appellant and the victim. 10. PW- 5, grand daughter of the victim stated in her examination-in- chief that on the day of the incident there was power cut in her house, however there was power supply in her elder father’s house. She further stated that she woke up at night by hearing her grand mother crying and when she asked her what happened she didn’t 6 CRA No. 47 of 2022 told her anything. She further stated that when in the morning she again asked her grand-mother why she was crying she told her about the incident. In her cross examination she accepted the suggestion that her house and her elder father house are connected and if there is any noise it can be easily heard from the other house but she did not hear any noise that night. She further accepted the suggestion that there is a property dispute between the families for about last 10 years. 11. PW-10 Dr. Vinita Dhruw stated that there was no injury marks on the body of the victim. Further, she has not given any definite opinion regarding immediate sexual intercourse. PW- 11 Dr. Ravindra Kumar Verma stated in his cross examination that the appellant has hydrocele and swelling in testis. 12. DW-1 wife of the accused stated in her examination-in-chief that though the victim is own mother of the appellant, but she always used to treat the appellant with step-mother behavior. She further stated that there was a dispute between the appellant and the other brother with regard to the property. She further stated that her husband/ appellant had hydrocele disease due to which the appellant was not able to establish physical relationship for the last 5 years. She also stated that the appellant used to have pain in his private parts. Further, the DW-2 daughter of the appellant has also 7 CRA No. 47 of 2022 supported the version of her mother DW-1. 13. In FSL report vide Ex.P-19, no human sperm was found in the vaginal slide and clothes of the victim. In the medical examination report of the victim, no injuries were found over the parts of the body of victim. 14. In the case in hand the incident took place on 14.01.2019 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 17.01.2019 but the delay in filing the FIR has not been explained properly and it is only stated that because the younger son of the victim was out of station she waited for him to return and then lodged the report. As the victim is a major lady she was able to lodge the FIR alone thus the reason for delay in lodging the FIR cannot be accepted. 15. Further, PW- 5 the grand daughter of the victim has accepted the suggestion in her cross examination that as their house and appellant house are connected any noise in one house can be heard in the other house but she did not listen any noise that night so the statement of the victim that she kept screaming but no one heard, such statement cannot be trusted. Further, it is also important to note that from perusal of the testimonies of all the witnesses the fact that comes to light is that there was a property dispute going on between the families since last 10 years due to which there were frequent quarrels between the appellant, his brother and the victim. Further, the FSL is also negative and no 8 CRA No. 47 of 2022 injury marks are found on the body of the victim and further the fact also comes to light that the appellant was suffering with hydrocele disease. 16. As there were quarrel between the family, the allegation of rape can be a offshoot of such domestic quarrel could not be ruled out. Further, there is no corroboration from other material and medical evidence keeping in mind that there were property disputes amongst the family members, it would have been unsafe to rely upon the testimony of the victim. 17. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 18. In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. The appellant is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by him at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions 9 CRA No. 47 of 2022 of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 19. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 20. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Gowri