1 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. 2025:CGHC:35883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 857 of 2018 1 - Girvar Kumar Jangade S/o Suraj Aged About 16 Years R/o Village Haraftarai, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Angeshwar Yadav (Dead) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with CRA No. 1369 of 2016 1 - Harish Banjare S/o Naresh Banjare Aged About 19 Years R/o Harfatarai, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Roshan Ber S/o Ram Prasad Ber Aged About 24 Years R/o Harfatarai, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.28 15:32:37 +0530 2 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. alongwith Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 24/07/2025 1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arising out of same Sessions Trial No. 13/2016, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment. 2. In the case at hand, 04 accused persons were tried and out of them, two accused persons preferred CRA No. 1369/2016 and two accused persons preferred CRA No. 857/2018. Out of Two accused in CRA No. 857/2018, Appellant No.2- Angeshwar Yadav has died. The said fact is apparent from the memo dated 16/07/2025 submitted by the In-charge Officer/ District Judge O/o Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby, it has been informed that Angeshwar Yadav has been died on 06/01/2025. As such, on account of death of Accused-Angeshwar Yadav, the appeal filed in respect of him in CRA No. 857/2018 stands abated. 3. Both these criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C 3 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 13/2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, C.G., whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376 (D) of the IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 323 of the IPC R.I. for six months. U/s 506 II of IPC R.I. for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a complaint to the effect that she is studying in the second semester of M.Sc. I.T. in Ravi Shankar University, Raipur and lives in Baspara Dhamtari. She has a love affair with Abhishek Mishra since about 01 year. At about 20.30 in the night, she went towards the Sehra Dabri canal bridge on Abhishek Mishra's motorcycle, on the way, the four accused persons came there and caught Abhishek and punched him and threatened to kill him and snatched their mobiles and took them away, where the accused raped the victim one by one. On the basis of the above complaint, a First Information Report was registered against the accused and investigation was taken up. 5. During the investigation, Spot Map was got prepared. The Accused were apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate under 4 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. Section 164 CrPC. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/appellants, the charges were read out and explained to the appellants, they denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 7. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 07/09/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the statements of the victim is filled with contradictions and omissions, thus not worthy of being given credence. He further submits that conviction cannot be based on guesswork. He submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellants is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and without there being any cogent evidence, the conviction of the appellants is bad in the eyes of law. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is just and proper, well merited and warrant no 5 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. interference of this court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 11. The first question for consideration would be that whether the appellants committed rape upon the victim or not. (a) The victim/prosecutrix has been examined as PW/1. She stated in her statement that on 17th January, 2016, she along with her friend Abhishek Mishra (PW2) went on a motor cycle towards Sehra Dabri bridge. They both stopped for a little bit before Sehra Dabri bridge, at the same time, the accused persons, namely Girvar Kumar Jangade, Harish Banjare and Angeshwar Kumar Yadav came there and started beating up and abusing her friend. The victim and her friend asked them to let them go, but they denied. At that time, the accused picked up a stick lying there and started beating Abhishek Mishra. Thereafter, the accused took away the keys of the motorcycle, snatched the money, press ID card and mobile kept with Abhishek Mishra. Thereafter, the accused took both of them at a little distance from the place of incident where the accused threatened PW/2 by saying that if he shouted they would kill him. (b) Victim PW-1 further stated that the accused Girwar Kumar Jangade started saying to her and PW-2 that let him have physical relations with one person, only after that he would let them go. Upon which, victim and PW-2 started shouting but on shouting, accused Harish Banjare 6 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. started beating both of them. Thereafter, accused Girwar Kumar Jangade, Angeshwar Kumar Yadav and Roshan Ber caught hold of PW-2 and took him to the boundary of another field. At the same time, accused Harish Banjare came to the victim and took off her jeans upto her knees and also took off her underwear below her knees and forcefully established physical relations without her consent. After committing such offence, he left from there. Thereafter, accused Roshan Ber came to the victim and he also committed sexual intercourse forcibly with the victim. Accused Roshan Ber also left from there. Thereafter, the third accused Girwar Kumar Jangade came and he also had physical relations with the victim forcibly thereafter, the fourth accused Angeshwar Kumar Yadav also came to the victim and also made incorporeal relations with the victim. (c) She further stated that after having physical relations with her, the accused returned the money, mobile and motorcycle which they had snatched. The accused told them not to tell anyone about the incident. After leaving the spot of incident, they informed the police about the incident. She also informed her parents about the incident. 12. Abhishek Mishra being an eye witness to the incident who was examined as PW/2 also corroborated the above statement and ordeal of the victim, stated that he knows all the accused from the date of incident. This witness also stated that the accused beaten him up and snatched their belongings. The accused took him away towards another field and they committed forcibly sexual intercourse with his friend one by one. 7 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. 13. Dr. Asha Tripathi, Woman Doctor posted in District hospital Dhamtari, examined as PW/10 who conducted medical examination of the victim, stated in her statement that there is no mark on the body of the victim which occurs during struggle and her private part is in normal condition. She opined that a firm opinion cannot be given that whether sexual intercourse has been done by a group of persons or not. 14. However, if the prosecutrix has become a victim of sexual intercourse under compulsion, it cannot be said that she had given consent. The woman became so weak and cowardly that she could not resist. There is no such evidence in the statement of victim that the above four accused did not commit rape upon her. 15. If the testimony of the victim is trustworthy and totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely implicate the persons charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her/his evidence. 16. It has also become almost settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary statement of victim, provided same inspires confidence of the Court. In the case at hand, right from the beginning till the end i.e. at the time of lodging of FIR; while making statement under Section 164; and ultimately before the trial Court, the statement of the prosecutrix remains consistent throughout. This unwavering narrative across all stages of the criminal proceedings adds substantial credibility to her version of events. The consistency in her account reflects not only the reliability of her testimony but also supports the prosecution’s case by reinforcing the absence of material contradictions or embellishments. 8 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. 17. In such heinous crime, a ‘sterling’ witness refers to a witness whose testimony is of high quality on caliber to the extent that the Court can accept their version of events without requiring additional corroboration. The Supreme Court in ‘n’ numbers of cases, has observed that the testimony of a victim can be sufficient for conviction, if it is trustworthy and of sterling quality. 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. 9 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more recise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 19. Applying the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above stated judgment and after perusing the evidence available on record, it stands established on record beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape knowing that it to be 10 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. likely that they will thereby committed heinous crime. Victim/PW-1 has categorically assigned role to the accused in commission of said offence against her. Therefore, having aforesaid materials on record, compels this Court to hold that prosecution has proved on record beyond reasonable doubt, that on the date of incident, the accused knowingly sexually assaulted the victim, intending to commit rape upon her without her consent. Hence the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire facts of the case and convicted the accused under Section 376D of the IPC. 20. The next question for consideration would arise that the trial Court has justified in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 II of the IPC 21. Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, which deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states that anyone who intentionally causes hurt to another person can be punished with imprisonment up to one year, a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both, and Section 506 II is concerned, which deals with the criminal intimidation, and specifically, addresses the more severe form of such intimidation, if the threat involves causing death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment, the trial Court after appreciating the facts of the case, convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for 06 months and 01 year respectively. 22. Upon bare perusal of the medical examination report (Ex.P/41) adduced by Dr. C.L. Sahu (PW/14), it was found that PW/2 was complaining of 11 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. pain in the left side of his head, back and throat. He stated in his statement that on examination, no injury marks or bleeding was found, but on his body, there was a 3 x 3 cm red mark, which was on left side of back and below hip bone of PW/2. The said injury was of normal nature and was within 12 hours of examination. Thus, it is confirmed by the statement of this witness that the injured PW/2 was found to have sustained injuries on his body. During cross-examination, this witness also remained uncontroversial. 23. Thus, from the above evidence, it is found that the accused together assaulted the victim and injured PW-2 and voluntarily caused hurt and attempted to kill them and caused criminal intimation by threatening them. Hence the finding of the learned trial Court undoubtedly found justified and in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly observed in its judgment and justifiably sentenced the accused under Sections 323 and 506 II of IPC. 24. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. Both the appeals lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 25. The accused are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of sentence. They are at liberty to 12 / 12 CRA No. 857 of 2018 & Anr. assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 26. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar/ Gowri