(Cr.A.No.1858/2022) 2025:CGHC:10119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1858 of 2022 (Arising out of judgment dated 16-11-2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kondagaon in Sessions Trial No.27/2020) Annuram @ Anturam Nag, S/o Bangaram @ Chaituram, Aged about 30 years, Modebedma, Schoolpara, Thana Urandabeda, District Kondagaon (C.G.) (In Jail) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Aarkshi Kendra, Urandabeda, Distt. Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mrs. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 28/02/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-11-2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kondagaon in Sessions Trial No.27/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and further SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.03.03 16:11:28 +0530 (Cr.A.No.1858/2022) sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to ₹ further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 17-3-2020 at about 7:30 p.m., the appellant has taken the victim (PW-1) in the field of one Danuram at Village Modebedma, Police Station Urandabeda, District Kondagaon and committed sexual intercourse upon her against her wishes and thereby committed the offence. The victim (PW-1) reported the matter to the Police Station with a delay of 24 hours vide written complaint Ex.P-1 pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2 on 18-3-2020 at 7:20 p.m.. MLC was conducted on 19-3-2020 by Dr. R. Jyotiramai (PW-11) vide Ex.P-14 in which she has found pain & swelling on the left cheek and pain on the breast of the victim. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and the matter was investigated. Thereafter, after usual investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove the offence against the appellant, examined as many as 12 witnesses and brought on record 19 documents Exs.P-1 to P-19. The defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document in support of its case. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to convict the appellant herein as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred. Page 3 of 8 (Cr.A.No.1858/2022) 5. Mrs. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that only on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim (PW-1), the appellant has been convicted, whereas, she is not the witness of sterling quality and her evidence suffers from severe infirmities and inconsistencies, therefore, her evidence could not have been relied upon, even it is not supported by medical evidence and moreover, forensic report / evidence is not available, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 6. Mr. Afroz Khan, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondent, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, as such, no interference in the impugned judgment would be made out. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record carefully and thoroughly as well. 8. It is the case of the prosecution that on the fateful day, the victim (PW-1) had gone to the village market with her sisters-in-law Bajantin & Aahuti, but while they were returning, only just 50 meters away from their house, the victim suffered severe pain on her hands & legs, therefore, her sister- in-law Bajantin requested the accused/appellant herein to drop the victim at her home in his motorcycle, which the appellant accepted and took her (Cr.A.No.1858/2022) in his motorcycle to her home, which is only 50 meters away from that place, however, instead of taking her to her home, he took her to the field of one Danuram and there, he committed sexual intercourse upon her against her will and wish. However, sisters-in-law of the victim namely, Bajantin (dedh saas) & Aahuti (nanand) both have not been examined by the prosecution. It is well established on record that the appellant and the husband of the victim namely Bajnuram Nag (PW-2) both are cousins and close relatives. It is also established from the statements of Dassuram (PW-3) & Manuram (PW-4) that relationship between the appellant’s family and the victim’s family is very strained and they do not have cordial relations at all, as the appellant had beaten the mother-in-law of the victim and the appellant is said to have extramarital relations with the sister-in-law of the victim. Furthermore, the incident took place on 17-3-2020 at 7:30 p.m. and the FIR was lodged with a delay of 24 hours on 18-3-2020 at 7:20 p.m., whereas the distance of police station is 7 Kms. from the village. Some external injuries were found on the body of the victim. 9. A careful perusal of the statement of the victim (PW-1) would show that the victim’s husband Bajnuram Nag (PW-2) and the appellant both are cousins and they have already had strained relations on account of the appellant’s having illicit relationship with wife of Rajlal – brother of Bajnuram Nag (PW-2). Similarly, Bajnuram Nag (PW-2) – husband of the victim, has also stated that quarrel has taken place between them and (Cr.A.No.1858/2022) the appellant, as the appellant was allegedly having illicit relation with his brother's wife. Dassuram (PW-3), a villager, has clearly stated that a dispute is outstanding between the two families i.e. the appellant's family and the victim’s family, as the appellant is allegedly having illicit relation with wife of Rajlal - brother of the victim’s husband, and the appellant has beaten the mother-in-law of the victim i.e. the mother of Bajnuram Nag (PW-2) and on account of such dispute, Bajnuram proclaims that he would falsely implicate the appellant in any case so as to take revenge on him. As such, the strained relation between the appellant and the victim’s family is duly established. 10. The question would be, whether in light of the strained relation between the appellant and the victim’s family, particularly when the appellant allegedly is having extramarital relation with the wife of Rajlal - brother of Bajnuram Nag (PW-2), Bajantin & Aahuti - sisters-in-law of the victim, would permit the appellant to take the victim asking him to leave her at home, which on the face of record appears to be very doubtful in the facts and circumstances of the case, that too when the time of incident is 7:30 p.m. and more particularly, distance between the house of the victim and the place where the lift was asked by the sisters-in-law is only 50 meters, whereas, the market is 1 km. Thus, it would be unacceptable that in the dark night and when strained relation of having extramarital relation exists between the appellant and wife of Rajlal, sisters-in-law of the victim would permit her close relative i.e. the victim to go along with (Cr.A.No.1858/2022) the appellant in his motorcycle. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined sisters-in-law of the victim namely, Bajantin & Aahuti, who have asked the appellant to give lift to the victim and drop her at home. As such, taking the victim by the appellant on his motorcycle in order to drop her at home on being asked by sisters-in-law of the victim - Bajantin & Aahuti is clearly suspicious and cannot be accepted. 11. Furthermore, the incident took place on 17-3-2020 at 7:30 p.m. and the FIR was lodged on 18-3-2020 at 7:20 p.m.. Though meeting has taken place in the village at 12:01 noon as per the statement of Bajnuram Nag (PW-2), but the victim (PW-1) in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC i.e. Ex.D-1 has refuted the said fact stating therein though the proposal of meeting was there, but she and her husband did not agree with that proposal and reported the matter to the police. As such, the delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR on the ground of holding meeting for resolution of dispute is not acceptable and thus, false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. 12. Similarly, the victim (PW-1) in her statement before the Court has also stated that she has caused scratch injury on neck & face of the appellant by her nails, but Dr. Lakhan Jurri (PW-8), who has conducted MLC on the appellant vide Ex.P-11, has stated that there was no scratch on the entire body of the appellant and no external injury or mark of violence is seen on the appellant. Further, the victim in paragraph 6 of her evidence (Cr.A.No.1858/2022) has stated that the appellant has taken her to the field of Damuram, but when she was confronted with the place of incident as shown in Ex.P-4 - spot map prepared by the investigating officer, she has stated that the place of incident shown in the said spot map is the field of Laxman Marapi, not the field of Damuram. Thus, there is clear contradiction with respect to the place of incident and injury on the body of the accused/ appellant of having been allegedly caused by the victim. 13. As such, in light of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution story as projected and found established by the trial Court is clearly not born out from the material on record, as relation between the appellant and the victim’s family is very much strained and they were not having good terms and therefore the possibility of the victim being falsely implicating the appellant cannot be ruled out. Moreover, sisters-in-law of the victim namely, Bajantin & Aahuti, who on the fateful day at night asked the appellant to accompany the victim so as to leave her at her house, have not been examined and lodging of the report after delay of 24 hours when the police station is only 7 kms. away from the place of incident is also doubtful. Though the victim (PW-1) is said to have caused nail injury on neck & face of the appellant, but no such injury was found on the appellant's entire body. Dassuram (PW-3) has stated in his statement before the Court that Bajnuram Nag (PW-2) - husband of the victim, proclaims that he would falsely implicate the appellant herein in any case so as to take revenge on him. As such, it is a (Cr.A.No.1858/2022) case of false implication and thus, false implication of the appellant in the present case cannot be ruled out. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the principle of benefit of doubt. 14. In that view of the matter, conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC are liable to be set aside and they are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. He is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 15. The criminal appeal stands allowed. 16. 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 the appellant is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma