1 2025:CGHC:54441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 567 of 2005 Vishnu Kumar son of Nathela Satnami, aged about 20 years, R/o. Village – Mainpur, P.S. Sihava, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through – P.S. Sihava, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from Case information System} For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Puriya, PL for the State. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 07.11.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth, Cr.P.C.) challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th May, 2005 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Sessions Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth, “trial Court”) in Sessions Trial No. 347/2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (1), 450 and 506-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI of 7 years with fine of Rs.100/-, RI for three years with fine of Rs.100/- and RI for one year with fine of Rs.100/-, respectively. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been 2 directed to undergo RI for one month for each offence. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.09.2004 victim (PW-1) made written complaint (Ex.P-1) to the Police Station Sihawa alleging therein that her husband is posted in Armed Force. She resides alongwith her one year old child and father-in-law & mother-in-law. Three months ago, the appellant entered her house unauthorisedly and raped her at the threat of a sword and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident. Lastly, on 16.08.2004, the appellant again raped her in her house by threatening to kill her. On 31.8.2004, victim (PW-1) narrated the said incident to her in-laws. Thereafter, a village meeting was called, but the appellant did not attend the said meeting despite being summoned. Based on the above facts, FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged against the appellant for the offence under Sections 376, 450 and 506-B of IPC. Medical examination of victim was conducted by Dr. Asha Tripathi (PW-11), who vide medical report (Ex.P-14) opined that since victim had already delivered a child and no injury was found on her person, therefore, no definite opinion can be given about commission of rape with her. She prepared two vaginal slides and handed over the same for its chemical examination. Medical examination of appellant/accused was also conducted by Dr. D.R. Thakur (PW-8), in which he gave a 'positive' opinion vide Ex.P-8. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Undewear of victim was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-3). Spot map (Ex.P-4) and (Ex.P-12) were prepared by Patwari & police, respectively. Official underwear of victim and one sword-cane (Gupti) was seized from appellant vide seizure memo 3 (Ex.P-5). Vaginal slide of victim was seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P-7). The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P-7). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against appellant for the offence under Sections 450, 376 and 506-B of the IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, who, in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Raipur thereafter, the case was transferred to the Upper Sessions Judge, Dhamtri, Sessions Raipur (C.G.) for trial. 3. Learned Upper Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 450, 376 (1) & 506 -B of the IPC against the appellant, who abjured the guild and entered into trial. 4. So as to hold accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. Statement of the appellant/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses stating therein that there was love affair between him and victim, therefore, she also wrote letters to him. Since the husband of the victim was serving in the armed forces, she pressured him to stay with her, which he refused to accept, therefore, she falsely implicated him in this case. 5. The trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide its judgment dated 17.05.2005, convicted the appellant herein for offences under Sections 376(1), 450 and 506-B of the IPC and sentenced him, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment, which has been challenged by the appellant in the instant appeal. 4 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is delay in lodging the complaint as it was lodged on 31.8.2004 whereas the incident took place on 16.8.2004. He further submits that it is a case of consensual relation as there was a love affair between victim and the appellant. This fact also get support from deposition of Dayaram (PW-4), who is father-in-law of victim and Gayatri Prasad Sahu (PW-7), who has admitted in his cross-examination that in village meeting, victim had admitted that she was in relation with appellant for about three months. He further submitted that neither the medical report of the victim nor the FSL report is in support of the prosecution case, yet the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant without considering the evidence in its proper perspective. As such, impugned judgment is perverse and illegal, hence, he prayed that appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the alleged charges. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that impugned judgment is based on well appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not call for any interfence by this Court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be rejected. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made and also went through the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 9. The victim (PW-1) has stated in her statement that on 16.8.2004 at about 11 p.m., the appellant entered her room with a sword and threatened to kill her and thereafter he forcefully raped her. She has further deposed that on 31.8.2004, she informed about the incident to her in-laws, thereafter, a meeting was convened in the village, but despite being called appellant, he 5 did not present in the meeting, therefore, she made written complaint against appellant. 10. Dayaram (PW-4) is Father-in-Law of victim, Hariram (PW-2) and Gayatri Prasad Sahu (PW-7) are resident of village of both the parties. They have also supported the fact that in respect of aforesaid incident, a meeting was called in the village, but appellant did not attend the said meeting. 11. As per the case of prosecution, appellant allegedly sexually exploited her many times, but in examination-in-chief, victim has stated about single incident. Though, in paragraph 10 of her cross-examination, she has stated that appellant also sexually exploited her prior to 16.8.2004. 12. As per deposition of victim (PW-1), victim resided in her house alongwith her father-in-law & mother-in-law, but she has admitted in her cross-examination that she never raised any alarm or never used any force to prevent herself while alleged incident committed by appellant with her. Though, she has stated that appellant used to threat her to kill her, as he held sward, but no sword has been seized from appellant, rather sword-cane (Gupti) has been seized from appellant vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5), but there is nothing on record to connect it from said offence. Further, Gayatri Prasad Sahu (PW-7), who is one of witness of seizure memo (Ex.P-5), has admitted in his cross-examination that alleged sword-can was seized from appellant one month prior to lodging FIR by the victim. At the time of deposition of victim, said sword-cane was also not found to be shown to her to connect it to the incident. 13. Dayaram (PW-4), father-in-law of victim has admitted the suggestion of learned defence counsel in paragraph 5 of his cross-examination that he was 6 aware of the love affair between the victim and the appellant. It seems that he came to know about this fact in the village meeting. Gayatri Prasad Sahu (PW-7), who was also present in the said meeting, has also admitted the suggestion of defence counsel that in said meeting, victim has admitted that she is in relation with the appellant for about 3 months. 14. Though, the victim has denied the suggestion of learned defence counsel in her cross-examination that she was in love affair with the appellant, therefore, she willingly indulged in said relation, but from deposition of her father-in-law (PW-4) and independent witness (PW-7), it is found that she was in affair with the appellant, therefore, residing with in-laws in same house, neither she raised any alarm against alleged sexual exploitation by the appellant nor she tried to protect herself by using force against him. Therefore, aforesaid admission of her father-in-law (PW-4) and Gayatri Prasad Sahu (PW-7) cannot be ruled out that she was in affair with the appellant, hence, the alleged physical relationship established with her by the appellant was consensual. 15. Medical report of Dr. Asha Tripathi (PW-11), who examined the victim vide Ex.P-14 and FSL report of underwear of victim and appellant and vaginal slides of victim, though not exhibited, is also supported to the case of prosecution. 16. In view of above discussion, it is found that though victim (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that alleged physical relation was made by the appellant with her was under threat and without her consent and will, but having considered deposition of her father-in-law Dayaram (PW-4) and independent witness Gayatri Prasad Sahu (PW-7), aforesaid deposition of victim cannot be relied upon, as there is no other evidence in support of her 7 deposition, rather conduct of victim also does not support her statement, as she never tried to prevent herself from her alleged sexual exploitation by appellant, whereas, her in-laws were also residing in the same house. Thus, evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable to hold the guilty appellant for alleged offences, despite that learned Upper Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant vide impugned judgment. Hence, it is not found to be sustainable. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentences are set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the offences. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall continue for further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of B.N.S.S. 2023. 18. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.11 13:03:28 +0530