1 (CRA No. 688 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:19713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 688 of 2022 {Arising out of judgment dated 04.04.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.36/2021 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara (C.G.)} 1 - Dilip Lahre S/o Pillu Ram Lahre Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Oteband, P.S. And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bemetara, District - Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate For State :- Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 30.04.2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC by the appellant herein is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned I Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara, District ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.05.06 10:48:24 +0530 2 (CRA No. 688 of 2022) Bemetara, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.36/2021 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Dilip Lahre), by which the appellant has been convicted for offences as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 376(1) of the IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. U/s 454 of the IPC R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. (All the sentences are to run concurrently.) 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 08.05.2021 at about 01:30 PM, at Village Otebandh, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, the appellant herein trespassed into the house of the victim (PW-04), who is a major married lady and committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offences. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that the victim (PW-04) reported the matter to the police on 09.05.2021 vide Ex.P/6, pursuant to which, the police registered FIR vide Ex.P/7. Spot map and Nazari Naksha were prepared vide Ex.P/9 & Ex.P/4 respectively. Clothes of the victim and other articles were seized vide Ex.P/10 & 12. The 3 (CRA No. 688 of 2022) victim (PW-04) was medically examined by Dr. Vibha Singh (PW-13) and as per medical report of the victim (Ex.P/1), no external and internal injuries were found over the body of the victim and no definite opinion could be given about recent sexual intercourse. Slides of the victim were prepared vide Ex.P/12 and sent for FSL along with other seized articles. As per FSL Report dated 10.08.2021, no semen or human sperm was found in articles A to C, which are underwear, slides and swab collected from the victim as well as in article D which is underwear seized from the appellant-accused. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents, whereas, the appellant in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, 4 (CRA No. 688 of 2022) pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He would further submit that the statement of the victim is not supported by the medical and forensic evidence and that there is a delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR, which the prosecution has failed to explain satisfactorily. Furthermore, the victim’s house and the house of the victim’s brother-in-law/Jeth namely, Harishchandra Verma are adjacent to each other, and Harishchandra (PW-12) and his wife Nirmala Bai (PW-07) came immediately after hearing the cry made by the victim and as such, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond resonable doubt and, therefore, the 5 (CRA No. 688 of 2022) appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. It is not in dispute that the house of the victim and the house of her husband’s brother Harishchandra Verma (PW-12) are adjoining and cry made from one house can be heard in the other house. Now, as per the statement of the victim (PW-04), on the date of incident, the appellant- accused trespassed into the house of the victim and committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes and when she cried for help, Harishchandra (PW-12), his wife Nirmala (PW-07) and Dhaleshwari (PW-08) came to the victim’s house and according to victim, she informed all of them about the incident and they have seen the appellant- accused absconding from her house. However, the 6 (CRA No. 688 of 2022) statement of the victim is not supported by the medical evidence, as Dr. Vibha Singh (PW-13), who had medically examined the victim, did not find any external or internal injury over the body of the victim and the hymen was found to be old and raptured. Slides were prepared and sent for FSL but the FSL Report has also been found to be negative. Furthermore, the incident had occurred on 08.05.2021 at around 1:30 PM but the FIR was lodged on 09.05.2021 at around 1:30 PM i.e. after a delay of 24 hours and the only explanation provided by the prosecution is that the head of the family – Bahal Singh Verma (PW-14) was not present on the date of incident and when he came on the next day thereafter, the FIR was lodged. As such, the victim’s statement is not supported by the medical and forensic evidence and the delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR has also not been explained satisfactorily. 10. Moreover, the cry made by the victim from her house was heard in the adjoining house of Harishchandra (PW-12) and his wife Nirmala Bai (PW-07) and they came immediately thereafter and saw the appellant absconding. However, as per the statement of Nirmala Bai (PW-07), the time at which she heard the cry of the victim was around 1-1:30 PM and when she and her husband Harishchandra 7 (CRA No. 688 of 2022) (PW-12) reached the victim’s house, the appellant-accused immediately absconded after seeing them. Similarly, Dhaleshwari (PW-08) has recorded in her statement that the time at which she heard ‘bachao bachao’ was around 1:30-2:00 PM and she also reached the spot immediately after hearing the cry of the victim and saw the appellant absconding. Similar is the statement of Harishchandra (PW-12). As such, it appears that the victim was alone at the time of offence and after hearing her cry, Nirmala (PW- 07), Dhaleshwari (PW-08) and Harishchandra (PW-12) immediately reached the spot and saw the appellant absconding. Furthermore, as per the statement of Dikendra Verma (PW-06), husband of the victim, his relationship with the appellant was cordial and they also went to Jagganath Puri together and stayed there for three days. 11. As such, considering the delay in lodging the FIR and considering the fact that at the time of incident, Nirmala (PW-07), Dhaleshwari (PW-08) and Harishchandra (PW-12) came immediately after hearing the cry made by the victim and saw the appellant absconding, it would be risky and unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of sole statement of the victim. Furthermore, the statement 8 (CRA No. 688 of 2022) of the victim is not inspiring confidence in the Court to base conviction of the appellant particularly, as it is unsupported by the medical and forensic evidence and suffers from material discrepancy and inherent improbability. In that view of the matter, conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376(1) & 454 of the IPC is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside and he is acquitted on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter. 12. Consequently, this criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where he is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!