1 2025:CGHC:55496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1106 of 2023 Reserved on 31-10-2025 Pronounced on 14-11- 2025 Bandhan Jagte S/o. Ramsagar Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village - Governdhanpur Police Station - Trikundas, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balrampur - Ramanujgunj District - Balrampur - Ramanujgunj Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 743 of 2023 Hanslal S/o. Jagdhani Godh, Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village Goverdhanpur, P.S. Trikunda District - Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Basantpur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For appellant Bandhan Jagte in CRA No. 1106/2023 : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Adv. For appellant Hanslal in CRA No. 743/2023 : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Anuradha Jain & Ms. Prabha Sharma PL. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J ) CAV Judgment 1 Since both the above criminal appeals arise out of same judgment, they are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.11.17 11:06:01 +0530 2 2 These criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants/ accused against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-2-2023 passed by the 1st Upper Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (henceforth referred to as ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Trial Case No. 86/2027, whereby the learned trial Court, after holding the appellants/accused guilty, convicted and sentenced them in the following manner :- APPELLANT- BANDHAN JAGTE Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 366/34, IPC RI for 03 years Rs. 500/- Imprisonment for 15 days 342, IPC RI for 06 months Rs. 500/- Imprisonment for 10 days 376(2)(n), IPC RI for 10 years Rs. 500/- Imprisonment for 30 days All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. APPELLANT- HANSLAL Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 366/34, IPC RI for 03 years Rs. 500/- Imprisonment for 15 days 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 14-9-2017, victim/complainant made written complaint (Ex. P-1) to Police Chowki, Wadrafnagar, PS Basantpur to the effect that, appellant Hanslal is her brother-in-law (Jija). On 4-6-2017, appellants/accused came to her house and appellant Bandhan Jagte proposed to marry her, which she refused. On the same day, when she went to Wadrafnagar, then appellants met her there and after alluring and threatening her, they 3 took her to Ramanujganj on a motorcycle on the pretext of her marriage with appellant Bandhan Jagte. Despite her refusal, they kept her in a room of Shivam Lodge with the appellant Bandhan Jagte and in the night, without her consent, he raped her and threatened to defame her if she discloses the incident. On next day, they dropped her at Wadrafnagar, from where she went to her house, but thereafter appellant Bandhan Jagte used to visit her home. Once, appellant Bandhan Jagte came to their house and stayed there in the night, but next day morning, when no other family member was in the house, then the appellant Bandhan Jagte again raped her forcefully on pretext of marriage. Subsequently, she came to know that, appellant Bandhan Jagte is already a married person. Thus, appellant Bandhan Jagte raped her on pretext of marriage by deceiving her, to which, appellant Hanslal supported him. Based on above facts, an un-numbered FIR (Ex. P-2) was lodged in Police Chowki, Wadrafnagar against the appellants. Statements of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was got recorded from concerned JMFC. Spot map was prepared by the police and the Patwari. Victim was got examined by Dr. Maneesha Gupta (P.W. 5), who vide MLC report Ex. P-13 opined that, it is not possible to give a definite opinion as to whether immediate sexual intercourse took place with the victim or not, as she was not having any external or internal injury on her person, therefore, she prepared two vaginal slides of the victim and handed over the same to concerned Constable for chemical examination. MLC report (Ex. P-14) of appellant Bandhan Jagte was reported to be positive by Dr. Shashank Gupta (P.W. 8). The motorcycle bearing Registration No. 4 CG 16 CA 1289, in which, the victim was taken from Wadrafnagar to Ramanujganj was seized vide Ex. P-9, its RC book was seized vide Ex. P-10. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. Appellants were arrested. FSL report Ex. P-23 is reported to be negative, as no human spermatozoa was found in the vaginal slides of the victim. 4 After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC was filed by the police against both the appellants before the JMFC, Wadrafnagar. 5 Learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant Bandhan Jagte for the offence under Section 366 read with Section 34, Sections 376(2)(n) and 342 of the IPC. It also framed charge under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC against appellant Hanslal. Both the appellants abjured their guilt and entered in trial. 6 In order to prove the guilt of the appellants/accused, the prosecution examined following witnesses and exhibited following documents :- WITNESSES PW 1 Victim PW 6 Vijay Kumar Yadav, Patwari PW 2 Ramjeet, father of victim PW 7 Shubhraj PW 3 Jaswant, owner of motorcycle PW 8 Dr. Shashank Gupta PW 4 Anil Singh, brother of victim PW 9 Himendra Kumar Kushwaha Asstt. Sub Inspector. PW 5 Dr. Maneesha Gupta EXHIBITS 1. Ex. P-1 Written complaint 13 Ex. P-13 MLC report of victim 2. Ex. P-2 Un-numbered FIR 14 Ex. -14 MLC report of appellant Bandhan Jagte 5 3. Ex. P-3 Consent letter 15 Ex. P-15 Memo for examination of victim 4. Ex. P-4 Police Spot map 16 Ex. P-16 Information of arrest of appellant Bandhan Jagte 5. Ex. P-5 Police Spot map 17. Ex. P-17 Memo for examination of appellant Bandhan Jagte 6. Ex. P-6 Patwari Spot map 18. Ex. P-18 Memo for recording statement of victim u/S. 164, Cr.P.c. 7. Ex. P-6 Statement of victim u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. 19. Ex. P-19 Memo for preparing Patwari Spot map 8. Ex. P-8 Seizure memo of Slide 20. Ex. P-20 Memo for preceding Patwari Spot map 9 Ex. P-9 Seizure memo of motorcycle 21. Ex. P-21 Information of arrest of appellant Hanslal 10 Ex. P-10 Seizure memo of registration book of motorcycle 22 Ex. P-22 Receipt of FSL 11. Ex. P-11 Arrest memo of appellant Bandhan Jagde 23. Ex. P-23 FSL report. 12 Ex. P-12 Arrest memo of appellant Hanslal Statements of the appellants/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and false implication. They have not examined any witness in their defence. 6 7 Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, these appeals. 8 Learned counsel for the appellant/accused Bandhan Jagte would submit that, the victim was an adult lady aged about 20 years at the time of incident and she was educated also as she has studied upto Class 12th. Proposal of her marriage with the appellant was made by him to the victim and her family members. He further submits that it was consensual relation between the appellant Bandhan Jagte and the victim. She was also knowing the fact that, he is already a married person. Knowing this fact, without any objection, the victim indulged in physical relation with the appellant Bandhan Jagte. Therefore, their such relation does not fall under the offence of rape but, learned Upper Sessions Judge without considering the aforesaid fact, which is clear from the evidence of the victim and other witnesses, has convicted appellant Bandhan Jagte and sentenced him, which is perverse to the evidence available on record. He further submits that, if conviction part of the impugned judgment is upheld then, jail sentence imposed upon him may be reduced, as at the time of incident, minimum sentence of 10 years was not inserted for offence under Section 376, IPC, rather it was inserted in the year 2018 with retrospective effect from 21-4-2018, but the instant case occurred prior to that. Hence, sentence of 10 years may be reduced suitably, as the appellant has remained in jail for 7 months and 2 days during trial and 7 from date of judgment i.e. 16-2-2023 till date, he is in jail. Thus, he has remained in jail for 3 years, 3 months and 17 days. 9 Learned counsel for appellant Hanslal would submit that, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, offence of abduction of victim, particularly against the appellant Hanslal has not been proved as she herself accompanied them on her own free will, and only once she went with the appellants/accused persons from Wadrafnagar to Ramanujganj. Thus, conviction and sentence imposed against appellant Hanslal for the offence under Section 366, IPC is not sustainable, hence, his appeal may be allowed. Alternatively, learned counsel also submits that, the appellant Hanslal has remained in jail during the course of trial for 1 year 1 month and 9 days as per the certificate prepared by learned Upper Sessions Judge under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, he prays that, if conviction part of the appellant is upheld, then his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, while supporting the impugned judgment passed by learned Upper Sessions judge, would submit that the impugned judgment is well reasoned judgment based on proper appreciation of evidence, hence it does not call for any interference. Therefore, both the appeals may be dismissed. 11 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the case including record of the trial Court. 8 12 In the instant case, P.W. 1 is victim, who has stated in her deposition that, in summer season when she had gone to collect Tendu Patta, at that time, appellant Hanslal who was in acquaintance with the appellant Bandhan Jagte, came to their house, but since she was not present, therefore, they took her photographs and mobile number from her younger siblings. She has further deposed that, thereafter appellant Bandhan Jagte repeatedly made calls to her and even after 2 – 3 days, appellants came to her house and proposed her to marry with appellant Bandhan Jagte. One day, she had gone to Wadrafnagar to fill form of Anganbadi Karyakarta and also to purchase Ply by keeping Rs. 8,000/- with her, then on being asked by appellant Hanslal, she met both the appellants at Wadrafnagar. She denied their proposal to go to Ramanujganj, despite that, appellants allured her, took her mark sheet and money, kept the same in the dickey of motorcycle and took her to Ramanujganj. She has further deposed that, without her consent and will and even after raising objection, both the appellants kept her in a room of Shivam Lodge and where she was made to stay with the appellant Bandhan Jagte, who had assured her that they will stay there as brother and sister, but in the night, he forcefully made physical relation with her. She has further deposed that on the next day, appellant Bandhan Jagte took her to the Court where he got her signature in blank papers despite her refusal. There, appellant Hanslal also met them and in afternoon, both the appellants dropped her at Wadrafnagar on the motorcycle. The Victim has specifically stated that because of fear, she did not inform about the incident to her parents. After aforesaid incident, appellant Bandhan 9 Jagte used to come to their house. At once, he also stayed in her house and in the morning, in absence of her family members, he again forcefully rapped her. The victim has further specifically stated that appellant Bandhan Jagte had proposed to marry her, but after aforesaid incident, it was revealed that, he (Bandhan Jagte) is already a married person. Thereafter she lodged the FIR. 13 Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of the victim to disbelieve her statement, rather the suggestions taken by learned defence counsel are also supportive to the statement of the victim. 14 PW 2 is father of the victim and P.W. 4 is her brother. They have also supported the deposition of the victim, particularly P.W. 4, whom the victim had informed about the incident. 15 From perusal of deposition of aforesaid witnesses, particularly deposition of the victim (P.W. 1), it is found proved that by making proposal to get married with victim, appellant Bandhan Jagte, sexually exploited her twice without her free will and consent claiming himself to be an un-married person. It is also proved from the deposition of the victim that both the appellants had taken her from Wadrafnagar to Ramanujganj and in the night, appellant Bandhan Jagte kept her in a room of Shivam Lodge, to which, appellant Hanslal also persuaded her, where the appellant Bandhan Jagte, on the pretext of marriage, raped her and second time, he raped her in her house. From cross- examination of the victim (P.W. 1), her father (PW 2) and her brother (PW 4), it is clear that earlier, they were ready to get married her with 10 the appellant Bandhan Jagte, but it is also proved from deposition of aforesaid witnesses that, when they enquired from the villagers about appellant Bandhan Jagte, then they found that he is already a married person. No denial has been taken from these witnesses by learned defence counsel in their cross-examination. Thus, it is proved from the deposition of the victim (P.W. 1), her father (P.W. 2) and her brother (P.W. 4) that, the appellants not only abducted her from Wadrafnagar to Ramanujganj, rather, they also concealed the fact that, appellant Bandhan Jagte is already a married person. By concealing aforesaid fact, they extended proposal of marriage of victim with the appellant Bandhan Jagte. Thus, it is also very well proved that, both the appellants not only abducted the victim and kept her in confinement in a room of Shivam Lodge, rather by deceiving her, the appellant Bandhan Jagte sexually exploited her and in these criminal acts, appellant Hanslal actively supported him. 16 The medical report (Ex. P-13) of the victim, which was conducted by Dr. Maneesha Gupta (P.W. 5) and FSL report (Ex. P-23) of vaginal slides of the victim, are not supportive to the case of prosecution, because it was conducted/collected after so many days from the last cohabitation made by the accused Bandhan Jagte with the victim, but it is settled preposition of law that, if deposition of the victim/prosecutrix alone inspire confidence of the Court, with regard to trustworthiness of her deposition, then conviction can be based only on the basis of the victim. 11 17 In the case of Ganesan vs. State Represented by its Inspector of Police 1 , Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering various judgments rendered by it, has held that in the cases involving sexual offences, only on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, the court may convict the accused without corroboration. 18 In the matter of Nirmala Prem Kumar & another Vs. State represented by police2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while reiterating aforesaid dictum has held in paragraph 15 as under :- “15. What flows from the aforesaid decision is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution’s case. While the victim’s testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable and insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.” 1 2020 (10) SCC 573 2 Criminal Appeal No. 1098 of 2024 12 19 Reverting to the facts of instant case, though MLC report (Ex. P-13) of the victim and the FSL report (Ex. P-23) are negative and not supportive to the case of prosecution because it was conducted/ collected after so many days from the last cohabitation made by the accused Bandhan Jagte with the victim but, deposition of the victim (P.W. 1) itself is sufficient to inspire confidence of trustworthiness about the incident of her abduction by both the appellants and keeping her in wrongful confinement and sexually exploiting her by appellant Bandhan Jagte. Therefore, considering the evidence of instant case in the light of above referred case laws, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction of both the appellants for the offences as has been mentioned in opening paragraph. 20 So far as the sentences imposed upon appellant Bandhan Jagte is concerned, having considered the fact that, both the parties are residents of a village of tribal district Balrampur- Ramanujganj, the victim was an adult lady at the time of the incident and the incident of rape occurred in the year 2017 i.e. prior to amendment dated 11-8- 2018 in Section 376 of the IPC, when the minimum sentence for the offence was 7 years, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served if, jail sentence of appellant Bandhan Jagte is reduced from 10 years’ RI to 7 years RI for the offence of rape. As also, the appellant Hanslal has remained in jail for 1 year, 1 month and 9 days, therefore, in view of the above fact, this Court is also inclined to reduce his jail sentence from 3 years’ RI to the period already undergone by him. 13 21 Accordingly, Cr. A. No. 1106/2023 filed by appellant Bandhan Jagte is partly allowed. His conviction under Sections 366/34, 342 and 376(2) (n) of the IPC are affirmed. His sentence of 10 years RI for offencee under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC is reduced to the period of 7 years RI. His sentences for offence under Sections 366/34 and 342 of the IPC are affirmed. 22 Cr. A. No. 743/2023 filed by appellant Hanslal is also partly allowed. His conviction under Section 366/34 of the IPC is affirmed. His sentence of 3 years’ RI is reduced to the period already undergone by him (1 year, 1 month & 9 days). He is reported to be on bail. He needs not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 23 Fine sentences and default stipulations imposed on both the appellants and other terms of the impugned judgment shall remain intact. 24 Record of the concerned trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. 25 These criminal appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak