1 2025:CGHC:34813-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 473 of 2016 {Arising out of judgment dated 16.03.2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 14/2015 by the learned Special Judge (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District Korea} Pradeep Kumar Yadav, S/o. Shri Himanchal Yadav, Aged About 19 Years (As Per Challan Wrongly Mentioned 20 Years In The Impugned Judgment), R/o. Village Pakripara, Patna, Police Station Patna, Civil & Revenue District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Patna, Civil & Revenue District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. A.N.Bhakta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.07.24 16:44:16 +0530 2 Judgment on Board (22.07.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.2016, passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District Koriya in Special Sessions Trial No.14/2015, by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s. 450 of I.P.C. : Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 376 of I.P.C. : Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 506 of I.P.C. : Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment. 3 U/s.3(1)(xii) of S.C. /S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. : Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s.3(2)(v) of S.C./ S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that, on 10.09.2015, at about 10:00 A.M., at village Karji, Police Station- Patna, District Koriya, the appellant herein tress passed the house of the victim (PW-1) and threatened her and committed sexual intercourse with the major victim knowing fully well that she is member of scheduled caste and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. The FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-1 on 12.09.2015 after two days of the incident and thereafter, the victim was medically examined on the same day by Dr. Smt. Madhurima Pakera (PW-13) and as per the MLC report (Ex.P-11 & Ex.P-12), no internal or external injury was found on the body of the victim except one scratch in the chin. The undergarment of the victim and appellant stained with human sperm was seized and the vaginal slides were also prepared, which were sent for 4 chemical examination to FSL and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-19), human sperm was found on the undergarments of the victim and appellant. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offences, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents and the appellant- accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but has exhibited the documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4. 4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. A.N.Bhakta, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated, victim is major and consenting party and furthermore, there is no medical and forensic evidence available on record to connect the appellant for the offences in question 5 in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana 1 . As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences; therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The case of defence is that the victim (PW-1) is not only major but she is consenting party, as prior to the date of incident, on 09.09.2015 at night 11:00 P.M., the appellant & victim both were seen by family member of the victim, therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated. In this regard, the statement of Smt. Meera Bai (PW-12), Sarpanch of the Village, may be noticed herein. As per her statement, village panchayat meeting was convened in which father-in- law of the victim Lallaram (PW-6) has informed to Sarpanch 1 (2011) 7 SCC 130 6 (PW-12) that the appellant and victim both were caught near the Peepal tree at 11:00 P.M., which the victim (PW-1) has also confessed that on being called by the appellant herein, she had gone there. Then the victim’s husband has threatened her to kill and asked her to do as instructed by him. In para 5 of the cross-examination, PW-12 has also stated that the victim’s husband (PW-2) and victim’s father- in-law (PW-6) demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from the father of the appellant. Not only this, the medical evidence has not supported the case of the prosecution as there was no internal or external injury was found over the body of the victim except one scratch in the chin. The forensic evidence is also not reliable, as the date of incident is 10.09.2015 and the FIR was lodged by the victim on 12.09.2015 after delay of two days. Thereafter, the undergarments of the victim & appellant were seized on 12.09.2015, but the same were sent to FSL on 28.09.2015 and there is no explanation for the delay in sending the seized articles to FSL. Furthermore, since the victim was married and there was two days delay in lodging the FIR, therefore, matching of semen also ought to have been done in light of Krishna Kumar Malik (supra), in which the Supreme Court has held that matching of semen of appellant with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a 7 foolproof case must be done, otherwise the prosecution has to face the consequences. 9. In that view of the matter, since the medical and forensic evidence is not supported the case of the prosecution and the victim (PW-1) is major and consenting party, it appears that it is a case of false implication, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 10. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.2016 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellant stands acquitted giving him benefit of doubt from the charges framed against him for the aforesaid offences. The appellant is already on bail, he need not surrender; however, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 11. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ashok