1 CRA No. 227/2016 2025:CGHC:38039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 227 of 2016 1 - Saurabh Chandrakar S/o Shri Bhikham Chandrakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Fagundah, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 01/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.05 17:20:34 +0530 2 CRA No. 227/2016 Cr.P.C 1973 is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 27/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. U/S 506 Part-II of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The essential facts for adjudication of this appeal are as follows: The prosecutrix, aged about 20 years and a B.Sc. III- year student at P.G. College, Dhamtari, was on her way to buy books on 26.12.2014 around 12:00 PM when the appellant, Saurabh Chandrakar, approached her outside the college on his motorcycle and offered to drop her at the bookshop. Initially hesitant, she agreed as he 3 CRA No. 227/2016 belonged to the same village. After purchasing the book, the appellant claimed he was hungry and took her to a friend’s house for breakfast. There, the prosecutrix allegedly lost consciousness and, upon regaining it an hour later, found herself naked and in pain. The appellant then dropped her at college, from where she went home. The prosecution further alleges that the appellant repeatedly coerced her into a physical relationship, threatening her life, and that they had sexual intercourse twice at Chhabda Lodge under pressure. The prosecutrix claims she consented out of fear, as the appellant had recorded their first encounter and threatened to circulate the video. Although he later handed over the video chip upon her demand, she learned from villagers that the video was shared on WhatsApp. She informed her parents and lodged a complaint, upon which Dhamtari police registered an FIR under Sections 376, 506 Part II, and 417 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act. Subsequently, statement of the Victim and the 4 CRA No. 227/2016 statements of witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No defence witness was examined by the accused/appellant. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available 5 CRA No. 227/2016 on record has acquitted the accused/appellant from the offence under Section 67 of I.T. Act and convicted him under Section 376 and 506 Part II of the IPC as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that in the present case there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR which gave an opportunity to the police to falsely implicate the accused. Learned counsel further submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that prosecutrix is a consenting party, therefore no such allegations are made out against the appellant and he deserves to be acquitted. He lastly argued that there are several contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which have been overlooked by the trial court. The evidence and the circumstances unequivocally give rise to false implication as against the involvement of commission of crime, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the 6 CRA No. 227/2016 submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. "Whether the act of sexual intercourse committed by the appellant amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC or was it consensual?" 7. (a) PW/1 victim in his deposition before the Court has stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 26.12.2014, she had come to PG College Dhamtari around 10:00 AM, where the appellant, Saurabh Chandrakar, approached her outside the college on his motorcycle and offered to drop her at the bookshop. After purchasing the book, the appellant claimed he was hungry and took her to a friend’s house for breakfast. After taking breakfast, suddenly headache occurs and she felt dizzy, then she lay down there and she was in a semi- conscious state. She further deposed that the accused forcibly 7 CRA No. 227/2016 had corporeal relations with her, thereafter, the prosecutrix allegedly lost consciousness and, upon regaining it an hour later, found herself naked and in pain. (b) (PW-1) victim further deposed that for a few days after the incident she remained at home; thereafter started going PG College Dhamtari, then one day, the accused stopped her on the way and asked her to meet him again and also asked the victim to have corporeal relations with him. She deposed on being asked she refused and said she does not want to meet him to which the accused threatened to defame her and kill her. The accused also said that he had made a video of the corporeal relations made by him with the victim earlier on his mobile phone and will defame her by uploading the same on Whatsapp. She further deposed that thereafter she met the accused after about a month and asked him for video chip (memory card), then he gave the chip to her, thereafter, she never met the appellant again. After the incident whenever the appellant met the victim on road, he again ask her to meet him to have corporeal relations, but she denied. The appellant again threatened her to upload the video on the Whatsapp. After someday, the victim came to know that her obscene 8 CRA No. 227/2016 video has been uploaded on whatsapp and she informed her family members and lodged a written complaint (Ex. P/1) against the accused. She has further deposed that the place where the accused took her by telling that it was his friend’s house, the same was Chhabra Lodge. In her cross-examination the (PW-1), Victim has admitted that when she returned to PG College at 02:00 PM, on the date of incident she did not tell her classmates and teachers about the incident and also admitted that even after returning home she did not tell her parents and brother that the accused had forcibly made corporeal relation with her. She further admitted that the incident took place on 26.12.2014 and she lodged the report of the incident on 25.08.2015 at Balod Police Station and further admitted that after the incident and before lodging the report on 25.08.2015 she did not lodge any complaint in any police station. She further agreed that she herself went to that place again with the accused about 01 month after the incident, then she came to know that the place was Chhabra Lodge. She herself stated that it was the month of February, when she went with the accused for the second time. She admitted the fact in her 9 CRA No. 227/2016 cross examination that she went to Chhabra Lodge with the accused for the third time in February 2015 at around 12:00 Pm; stayed with the accused for about 15 minutes and had corporeal relation with the accused there and then came to PG College. She admitted the fact that from which number the video was shared on whatsapp, she don’t know. Also admitted that she even don’t know the name of person who showed her obscene video on whatsapp. 8. Mother (PW-2) has stated in her cross-examination that prosecutrix did not give any information about the incident. She has further admitted in her cross-examination that the prosecutrix has told her about the incident on 20.08.2015. 9. Father (PW-3) has stated in his cross-examination that prosecutrix told him about the incident on August 2015, before that her daughter had not given any information about the incident. 10. Raj Kumar Sori (PW-4) Investigating Officer has stated in his cross-examination that map (Ex.P.4) which was prepared by him does not have the signatures of any witness other than the appellant and stated that the statement of the manager of 10 CRA No. 227/2016 Chhabra Lodge, Ajay Devangan, was recorded by him. The Manager had said in his statement that the name and address of all the customers who come to Lodge are recorded by him and the owner. (PW-4) also admitted that Ajay Devangan had also said in his statement that he does not allow anyone to stay in his hotel without any identity card. (PW-4) also admitted that the register of Chhabra Lodge from 26.12.2014 to 31.01.2015 has not been seized and he had gone through the register of Chhabra Lodge from 26.12.2014 to 31.01.2015 and he did not find the names of appellant and proseuctrix recorded in the said register. He also admitted that manager had also said in his statement that he has never seen the victim at Chhabra Lodge till date. 11. In the case in hand, Manager of the Chhabra Lodge has not been examined. 12. Dr. Smt. Shashi Claudias (PW/5) in her statement stated that after examining the victim, he did not find any mark of struggle that should have been made during commitment of rape on any part her body. while examining the victim it is found that hymen membrane to be old; she is found to be 11 CRA No. 227/2016 habitual in sexual intercourse and she has not given any opinion about the recent sexual intercourse. 13. Bare perusal of the above evidence, it is apparent that the incident occurred on 26.12.2014, however, the complaint was lodged on 25.08.2015, i.e., after an unexplained delay of 8 months. No explanation, reasonable or otherwise, has been satisfactorily given by the prosecutrix (PW-1) for such inordinate delay despite being a major and educated girl. 14. Apart from above, the testimony of the Victim would show that She admitted that she did not inform anyone teachers, classmates, parents on the day of the incident or soon after. She further admitted to voluntarily accompanying the appellant to Chhabra Lodge twice after the initial alleged incident. On both later occasions, she had sexual relations with the appellant. This admission, taken in light of her age and educational background, weakens the prosecution's case of coercion and force. 15. Moreover, the medical examination found no signs of physical assault or recent sexual intercourse. The hymen was found to be old and torn, and the prosecutrix was stated to be habitual 12 CRA No. 227/2016 to sexual intercourse. No injuries were found on her body suggestive of non-consensual physical contact. Even, there is also no evidence of coercion or threat of injury, except bald statement of victim to establish ingredient of Section 506 IPC, her bald statements do not inspire confidence of the court. Once the appellant acquitted from the offence under Section 67 of the I.T., wherein video chip was not proved, the plea of threat cannot be a ground to explain delay in lodging the FIR. 16. It is a settled principle of criminal law that in a case of rape, sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable and trustworthy, is sufficient to convict the accused. However, in the present case, her testimony suffers from multiple inconsistencies, material omissions, and admissions that indicate consensual relationship rather than a forcible act. 17. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that unexplained delay in lodging FIR and absence of corroborative evidence, especially when the prosecutrix is a major and educated woman, casts serious doubts on the prosecution version (Ref: Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2009 SC 174). 18. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered 13 CRA No. 227/2016 opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence available on record points to a consensual relationship, though perhaps a misguided one, between two young adults. 19. The benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court under Section 376 and 506 Part II IPC is hereby set aside. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has not proved that the appellant had forcefully taken away the Victim, and from the evidence of the victim, it is quite vivid that she herself went to lodge, two to three times and made corporeal relation with the appellant and has not informed anyone about the forceful sexual intercourse, therefore, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 21. The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 22. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be 14 CRA No. 227/2016 sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib