1 2025:CGHC:18175-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 241 of 2017 (Arising out of judgment dated 28.01.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 68/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh C.G.) Hiralal Chouhan S/o Jogendra Chauhan, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tarpali, Raigarh, Presently Residing- Koriyadadar, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (On bail) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana In Charge Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For State-Respondent :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (22.04.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused, under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 68/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 323 of IPC and SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.24 10:20:36 +0530 2 sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 year. U/s 323 of IPC R.I. for 01 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 23.04.2015, at about 08:00 am, at Village Koriyadadar, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District – Raigarh, the appellant has committed forcefully sexual intercourse with the major victim (PW-14) and also caused simple injury to her and, thereby, committed the aforesaid offences. 3. The further case of the prosecution is that when victim (PW- 14) reported the matter to the police, FIR (Ex.P/17) was registered by the police against the appellant and wheels of investigation started running, in which, spot map was prepared. After obtaining necessary consent vide Ex.P/11, the victim (PW-14) was subjected to medical examination, which was conducted by Dr. Usha Kiran Bhagat (PW-06) and, as per her MLC report (Ex.P/03C), it has been opined that no external injuries were found and no definite opinion can be 3 given regarding rape. Further, victim’s vaginal slides were prepared and handed over to the police for analysis, which were seized vide Ex.P/14. The accused-appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/09 and sent for medical examination. Appellant’s MLC report is Ex.P/02 and his undergarment was also seized vide Ex.P/18. One wooden stick has also seized from the appellant vide Ex.P/07. Further, one petticoat has also been seized from the spot vide Ex.P/08. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/21), it has been opined that no stains of human sperm/semen were found on the vaginal slide and the undergarment of the appellant. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the victim has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the 4 victim, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, appellant-accused in support of his defence has examined only 01 witness (DW-1). 5. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned above in the opening para of this judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix (PW-14) is an old lady aged about 65 years has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. He further submits that the story put forth by the prosecution that after committing rape, the accused/appellant inserted a piece of wood in the private part of the prosecutrix appears to be highly improbable. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 7. Learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and the 5 conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 376 and 323 of I.P.C. is well merited, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. It is admitted position on record that the victim (PW-14) was major on the date of the offence. The victim (PW-14), in her statement before the Court has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution at all. Even, in Para- 01 of her statement she has clearly stated that on the date of offence she was in the state of intoxication and while she was returning to her house, she fell down and suffered injuries. She has also stated that the appellant has not done any incident with her. Further, the victim (PW-14) was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but she remained consistent in her version and have not supported the case of the prosecution at all and completely turned hostile. As such, the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution and clearly stated that on account of intoxication she fell down on the ground and suffered injury. 10. So far as medical evidence is concerned, the victim (PW-14) was subjected to medical examination, which was 6 conducted by Dr. Usha Kiran Bhagat (PW-06), who gave MLC report (Ex.P/03C). As per MLC report (Ex.P/03C) of the victim, it has been mentioned that no external injury were found over the body of the victim. Old tag of hymen was present. No external injury over the thighs and private parts of the victim was found. Only on lacerated wound was found on the left lateral fornix of cervix, which was oozing, however no active bleeding was present. Further, it has also been opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding the rape on the victim. The aforesaid opinion has also been supported by Dr. Usha Kiran Bhagat (PW-06), who conducted MLC of the victim. As such, the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the forensic evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution, because as per FSL report (Ex.P/21) it has been opined that no stains of human sperm/semen were found on the slide of the victim (Article- A) as well as on the undergarment of the appellant (Article- E). 11. In that view of the matter, neither the ocular testimony of the victim (PW-14) supports the case of the prosecution nor the medical evidence and forensic evidence supported the case of the prosecution. Only on the basis that blood has been found on the private part of the victim (PW-14), the 7 appellant cannot be held guilty for the offences in question that too when the victim (PW-14) herself has clearly stated before the Court that on account of intoxication she fell down on the ground and suffered injuries. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 and 323 of I.P.C. is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Sourabh P.