1 2025:CGHC:35424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 107 of 2014 Anup Pratap S/o Dheer Say, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Khandhora, Dhanra Sapara, Police Station and Tahsil- Khadgawa, Civil & Revenue District- Korea, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through SHO, Police of P.S. Khadgawa, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 23.07.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16.12.2013 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 107/2014, whereby learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case, are that the prosecutrix (PW-5) used to live with her family in the village- Geji Sakulpara, Thana- Kandagwa and was doing household work, on 03.01.2013 as she was suffering from excruciating pain on her head, she went along with her husband (PW-6) to the accused for treatment by exorcism. On 04.01.2013, the prosecutrix along with her husband stayed in the house of the appellant, the appellant asked the prosecutrix to come with him to do some exorcism ( झाड़ फूँ क) rituals, thereafter the prosecutrix alone went with the appellant towards the Dauki Marghati, where the appellant said to the prosecutrix to lay down under the tree and he was performing the exorcism rituals. The allegation against the appellant is that at the time of performing the exorcism rituals, the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her own will and threatened the prosecutrix to not reveal about the incident. However, the prosecutrix revealed the said incident to her husband and on the next day she went along with her husband to police station to lodge the report against the appellant. During the investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted and also medical examination of the accused person/appellant was also conducted, spot map was prepared, relevant articles were seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant was arrested. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under 3 Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. The appellant/accused having abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him & pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, one witness adduced by the appellant in his defence. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is contrary to the facts, evidence and law. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the same has not been explained properly. It is clear from the statements of the witnesses that the prosecutrix is a consenting party to the act done by the appellant. Prosecution evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Lastly, he submits that the appellant having completing the entire jail sentence has been already released from the jail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant accordingly. However, no dispute is made regarding the fact that the 4 appellant after completion of the entire jail sentenced has been released from the jail. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is evident from record of learned learned trial Court that it framed charges for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376 of IPC by acquitting of the offence under Section 506 of IPC and sentenced him as prescribed in inaugural para of this judgment. 9. In her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix (P.W.-5) stated that the appellant is the exorcist (baiga) and does work of the exorcism(झाड़ फूँ क). She was going with her husband to the appellant, as she was suffering from excruciating headache, then the appellant did work of exorcism with the prosecutrix and due to night, they stayed in the house of the appellant and on the next day, the appellant stated that other rituals are remaining, therefore he took her to jungle where he said to lay down under the tree and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, she narrated the whole incident to her husband and lodged the report before the police station. However, she denied the suggestion of defence that her husband suspected upon her and also denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated the appellant in the crime in question. 10. Husband of the prosecutrix (PW-6) has also supported the statement of the prosecutrix and stated in his deposition that he went along with his wife (Prosecutrix) for the treatment, the prosecutrix told him that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. 5 11. Dr. Kalawati Patel (P.W.-7) who examined the prosecutrix stated that she did not find any internal or external injury on her body and gave her report vide Ex. P/15, in which she admitted her signature on A to A part. 12. Hirasai (PW-1), Shyamvati (PW-2), Sonvati (PW-3) and Khelsai (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution case, however the prosecution has declared them hostile and cross-examined them, though, they denied all suggestions of the prosecution. 13. It is quite evident from the statement of the prosecutrix that she categorically stated against the appellant and she remained firm in her cross-examination and also husband of the prosecutrix (PW-6) has supported the statement of the prosecutrix, however no subsisting enmity was proved by the defence and the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, findings recorded by the learned trial Court are well merited and based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 14. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. As the accused/appellant is reported to have been released from jail after completion of the entire sentence, there is no need to pass any order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL