1 CRA No. 4 of 2016 2025:CGHC:47271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 4 of 2016 Ramprasad Gond S/o Lalsai Gond Aged About 45 Years R/o Amamunda, Chuwki Korbee, Police Station Pasan, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Pasan, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 15/09/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 107/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, Korba whereby the JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.18 10:39:18 +0530 2 CRA No. 4 of 2016 appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 of the IPC Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.09.2014, the complainant went alone to wash clothes for Dashkarma in village Madiyakachhar and while she was returning in the afternoon at about 3 o'clock the accused met her on the way in front of Kadam tree, the applicant caught and threw her on the ground beside the road and started pressing her chest and raped the prosecutrix, when she screamed then the accused ran towards village Madiyakachhar. The prosecutrix thereafter came and told her husband Santosh Rajak about the incident and the next day went to police station Korba and filed a written report. On the basis of that written report, case number 0/2014 was registered under section 376 IPC, an First Information Report was lodged and Crime No. 127/2014 was registered at Police Station Pasan. 3. During the investigation, Spot Map (Ex. P-2) was prepared. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 3 CRA No. 4 of 2016 10 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 23.12.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of two days on 25.09.2014, whereas the incident had occurred on 23.09.2014 that too without explaining the delay by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons. He further submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He would submit that there is no sufficient material available to connect the accused with the crime in question. He would further submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and no identification parade was conducted to identify the accused, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission and submits that delay in filing of the FIR has duly been explained, as such the conviction of the appellant is well 4 CRA No. 4 of 2016 merited which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The question for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offences in question ? 10. PW-5, victim stated that she belong to dhobi caste and she went to wash clothes. On the way, the accused caught her and did wrong things with her. At that time she asked the accused to leave her but the accused pressed her breasts and just like husband and wife do, the accused did wrong things with her. At that time she held a stone in her hand and said that she will tell her husband, then the accused left her. She further stated that thereafter she went to her house and told her husband Santosh about the incident. She in her cross examination has accepted the suggestion that she did not know the name of the accused and had not seen him before the incident and she also clarifies that she did not told the name of the accused to her husband. She further clarified that when she told her husband about the incident they went with bow and arrow to the house of Sahasram to gather information about the accused and further the villagers suggested that the person who did wrong with her can be the accused as his father’s filed is near by. Whereas, in her statement recorded under Section 164 5 CRA No. 4 of 2016 of the Cr.P.C, this witness has stated that while she was returning home after washing clothes, at around 3 p.m., Ramprasad of Aammuda met her on the way and asked her where she was going. She recognized Ramprasad. she told him, "What's your concern?" Thereafter, he grabbed her, threw her to the ground, pressed her breasts, and forcibly raped her and when she screamed loudly and tried to hit him with a stone, the accused, unable to hold her, stopped. After raping her, the accused left her at the scene and fled towards Madiakachar. On 20/07/2014, after reaching home, she informed her husband Santosh about the incident and went to Madiakachar village with him to search for the accused but the accused was not found there. She further stated that as their village is very far from the police station and due to lack of means of transportation, she went to the police station the next day to lodge a report where she lodged a report alleging that Ramprasad had committed a crime against her. 11. Bare perusal of the above statements of the Victim, it is quite vivid that there are material contradictions and omissions in 164 statement and in her Court statement regarding the identification of the accused and the reporting of the crime. During her court testimony (PW-5), she stated that she did not know the name of the accused and had not seen him prior to the incident. She further testified that the villagers suggested the accused's name based on his father's field being nearby. However, in her Section 164 statement, she explicitly named the accused as “Ramprasad 6 CRA No. 4 of 2016 of Aammuda” and stated that she recognized him during the assault. A contradiction also exists in the sequence of events following the assault. In court, she mentioned threatening the accused with a stone and telling him she would inform her husband before he left. In contrast, her Section 164 statement details her attempt to hit him with a stone while screaming loudly, after which he fled toward Madiakachar. These discrepancies raise questions about the reliability of her account, particularly concerning the initial identification of the perpetrator. 12. PW-6 Santosh, husband of the victim, stated that they belong from Dhobi caste. He further stated that when his wife returned home from washing clothes, she informed that she had been thrown down and raped by a man. The couple first went to a village to inquire with the family for whom his wife had done work, but were told that they had no information. They then proceeded to the accused's house in Amamuda village, where they confronted the accused's father, but the accused escaped. The couple filed a police report the following day due to a lack of transportation. He further in cross examination has stated that his wife did not see the accused from the time of the incident until the filing of the report and the accused's name was not mentioned in the report. 13. PW-1 Sahasram stated that the victim came to his house to wash the clothes after his mother died. He further stated that on the same day the victim along with her husband returned at 3.P.M and 7 CRA No. 4 of 2016 told that someone had thrown her on the footpath. He further stated that she did not named the person and also did not told him what happened thereafter. 14. Dr. Smt. R. Dahire (PW7) has stated that she examined the genitals of the prosecutrix and gave the report Ex.P.10 and stated that sexual intercourse had taken place with the prosecutrix but since the prosecutrix is a married woman, hence it is natural for her husband to have sexual intercourse with her. Further she has also stated that there is no injury marks on the body of the prosecutrix. Dr. Deepak Singh (PW10) has also stated that the accused was examined and he was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. 15. Upon considering the entire evidence available on record, this Court found that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the Victim, which does not inspire confidence over the credibility of her statement because she had given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C contradictory to her statement given before the trial Court, which in the opinion of this Court, seems unreliable. 16. It is the trite law that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the committal court or even to contradict the same. The Supreme Court in the matter of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala1 has held as under:- “27. So far as the statement of witnesses 1 (2013) 14 SCC 266 8 CRA No. 4 of 2016 recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is twofold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement; and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164, his evidence in court should be discarded, is not at all warranted. 28. Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the committal Court or even to contradict the same. As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence. ” 17. In view of the material on record, it is evident that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and contradictions going to the root of the matter. The victim (PW-5) in her court testimony categorically admitted that she neither knew the accused nor had seen him prior to the incident, and that his name was suggested by villagers merely on the basis that his father’s field was situated nearby. This stands in stark contrast to her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she named the accused Ramprasad of Aammuda and claimed to have recognized him during the incident near Karamhad. Further contradictions are apparent in her narration of events after the alleged assault. In addition, the medical evidence does not support the allegation, as no injuries were found and the testimony of her husband reveals that she did not disclose the name of the accused to him at the earliest 9 CRA No. 4 of 2016 opportunity. Coupled with the unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR, wherein the accused was named for the first time, the prosecution version becomes doubtful. These inconsistencies and circumstances cumulatively render the prosecution case unreliable, entitling the accused to benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the victim PW-5 at para 14 of her cross examination stated that the police conducted the Test Identification Parade (TIP) whereas the Investigating Officer PW-8 at para 8 of his cross examination categorically stated that no Testy Identification Parade has been conducted, thus it is crystal clear that there is several contradiction and omissions in the statement of the witnesses. 18. After perusing the entire evidence and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, has committed grave error and not justified in convicting the appellant as the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 19. The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed. 10 CRA No. 4 of 2016 20. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti