1 2025:CGHC:54401 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1408 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Bang @ Sanjeev Bang S/o Late Govardhan Bang Aged About 32 Years R/o Narayanpur, Present Address Kunkuri District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Narayanpur District - Jashpur (C.G.) ..Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shr i Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board 07.11.2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act District Jashpur (C.G.) in Special Trial No. 24/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC R.I. for 10 years and =ne of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of =ne, 06 months R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the prosecutrix is a grown up lady aged about 27 years old and she appeared before Police Station KunKuri and submitted a written application stating that she is a resident of village Ginabahar, Police Station KunKuri. She came into acquaintance with the accused, namely Sanjay Bang, resident of KunKuri, in the year 2017. The victim and the accused used to communicate with each other through the accused’s mobile number 70*****811. During the course of their conversation, the accused, on several occasions, established physical relations with the victim under the false promise of marriage. On 15th October 2017, for the =rst time, when no one was present in the house at Narayanpur, the accused committed sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage. Both the victim and the accused remained in a relationship for about six years, during which the accused repeatedly established physical relations with her under the false assurance of marriage. When the victim asked the accused to solemnize the marriage, he refused, stating that she belonged to a diDerent community/caste and therefore he could not marry her. The accused also established physical relations with the victim again on 3rd March 2022. On that basis FIR has been registered under Section 376(2)(n), 313 of IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the 3 witnesses were recorded by the police. After completing the entire investigation, charge-sheet was =led before the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste.Learned trial Court framed charges for the oDences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 313 of IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt. 3. In order to bring home the oDence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited documents in support of case of the prosecution. The appellant has neither examined any witness in his defence nor exhibited any document. 4. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 02 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecutrix was a major lady aged about 27 years who understands her own well- being and she is educated with a B.Sc. Degree. The entire prosecution case is based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, without any independent corroboration. The alleged relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant was admittedly consensual in nature and 4 continued over a period of nearly six years, from 2017 to 2022. Such prolonged association clearly indicates that the relationship was voluntary, and not one obtained by deception or coercion. She was consenting party and no ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) of IPC available in the evidence brought out by the prosecution. Moreover, he further submit that the entire case reGects that the prosecutrix is major and her relationship is consensual. Further after 5 years and 28 days, the prosecutrix has made complaint about the said incidence, which destroyed the credibility of her testimony. The evidence of the victim does not inspire the con=dence and therefore no oDences under IPC and SC/ST Act are made out against the appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in AIROnline 2024 SC 764. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant and have submitted that considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant which is justi=ed and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 9. On perusal of the records, it is alleged that the accused, on several occasions, established physical relations with the victim. On 15th October 2017, for the =rst time, when no one was present in the house at 5 Narayanpur, the accused committed sexual intercourse with the victim. Both the victim and the accused remained in a relationship for about six years, during which the accused repeatedly established physical relations with her as per evidence of victim, the accused has given promise to marriage with her but after six years he denied to marry with her due to caste diDerence. When the victim asked the accused to solemnize the marriage, he refused, stating that she belonged to a diDerent community/caste and therefore he could not marry her. 10. Firstly, the appellant has been convicted for the oDences under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC. In order to prove the oDence, the victim has been examined as PW-1. 11. The victim (PW-1), aged about 27 years in the examination before the Court, has stated that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. In the cross-examination, she has clearly sated that she is close to the appellant as they were known to each other and were also known to each other’s caste and they were in relationship for 6 years. In her cross-examination, she has also stated that the accused owned a house at Kunkuri and also operated a grocery shop at Narayanpur, where he occasionally stayed overnight. She admitted that she frequently visited his shop, through which their acquaintance began. She deposed that she had been in a relationship with the accused for about six years, during which he repeatedly established physical relations with her under the promise of marriage. She stated that the =rst such act occurred on 15 October 2017 at Narayanpur when no one was present in the house. She admitted not 6 having reported the incident to anyone at the time and explained that she later discovered marriage was not possible due to caste diDerences. She worked as a lab technician at Loyola College, Kunkuri. She had not suDered any injury during the =rst incident and that no immediate complaint was lodged. 12. PW-3, the Doctor who has medically examined the victim have not found any external injury on her body and no de=nite opinion could be given with regard to any forceful sexual intercourse. 13. On going through the evidence of the prosecutrix, that she had been in a relationship with the appellant for six years and the appellant used to established physical relationship on the false pretext of marriage, but she has never raised any alarm, as stated in her complaint. In her later statement under Section 164 CrPC, she introduced new allegations of being forced to take medicines for abortion more than ten times and an attempt to murder in 2021 but she had not mentioned any incident of abortion therein. She further admitted that she never lodged any complaint regarding quarrels or disputes with the appellant during the relationship. therefore the said version shows that there is no such criminal intimidation. 14. On perusal of the evidence, it appears that the prosecutrix being major woman and in view of her statement, she was a consenting party and the incident is 5 years prior to the date of complaint lodged by her and the Delay in lodging of the FIR has also not been explained by the prosecution. Moreover, while she alleged that the accused established physical relations with her against her will, she also admitted that she 7 had been in a relationship with him for about six years, during which quarrels occasionally occurred. She did not report any of these incidents to the police or her family. The prosecutrix denied that the relationship was consensual but admitted that she went with the accused when he insisted, and that she suDered no physical injury at the time of the =rst alleged act. Despite claiming repeated acts over several years, she conceded that she never reported the matter to anyone until much later, giving no satisfactory explanation for the delay. She admitted that her written complaint (Ex.P-1) did not mention the administration of medicine to induce abortion or the alleged attempt to strangulate her. These serious allegations were made for the =rst time in her Section 164 CrPC statement, indicating material improvements. Several crucial allegations, including forced abortions, threats, and attempts to kill her by pouring petrol, were not mentioned in her original police complaint but surfaced only later in her judicial statement, amounting to material contradictions and afterthoughts. 15. From the close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the victim neither was taken by force by the appellant, she herself accompany with the appellant on her own will and consent. Further the appellant has not committed any forceful sexual intercourse with her without her will or consent and she engaged in making physical relation with the appellant consensually. 16. The version of the victim commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt in the mind of the Court on the veracity of the victim's evidence, 8 then it will not be safe to rely on the said version of the victim. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire con=dence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 17. Considering the entire evidence available on record, the evidence with regard to the conduct of the victim, her evidence, absence of any injury over her body as also the evidence that she was in love aDair with the appellant for 6 years, we are of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove that on the date of incident the victim has not been taken by force and she herself accompanied with him and made physical relation with him consensually, therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the oDences under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC is not made out against the appellant. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.07.2025 is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted from all the charges. The appellant is reported to be in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 19. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the 9 appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be eDective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of =ling of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti