1 2025:CGHC:52044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on 29.8.2025 Judgment delivered on 17/10/2025 CRA No. 124 of 2025 1. Pratap Manjhi S/o Chhotelal Manjhi Aged About 25 Years Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village-Thirliguda, Police Station Devbhog, District -Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Distrct Magistrate, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer SB:Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV Judgment 1. This appeal under Section 415 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, is directed against the judgment dated 7.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO and Rape Cases), Gariyaband in POCSO Case No.19/2022 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 376 (1) and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with usual default clauses, respectively. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.3.2022 at about 10:00 p.m. in night, accused/appellant kidnapped minor victim from her lawful guardianship with an intention of subjecting her to illicit intercourse, took her to village school, committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter took her to Bandpara, Odhishpa, left her there and fled away. Victim came back home taking lift, narrated the entire incident to her father and thereafter report of incident was lodged in concerned police station. Appellant came to be arrested on 22.3.2023. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 363. 366. 376 (3) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act, 2012. Trial court framed charges under Sections 363/366/376 IPC, to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined total 08 witnesses during trial. Statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which denied all allegations as false and pleaded that he has been falsely involved in the case. No witness in defence was examined. 4. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, by the impugned judgment convicted and 3 sentenced accused-appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned trial Court erred in convicting appellant under Section 376 (1) of IPC without evaluating the evidence of prosecution witness in its entirety and true perspective. He contended that allegation levelled by victim against appellant that he after alluring her saying that he will marry her, took her to school campus in night and committed sexual intercourse with her. Allegation of committing sexual intercourse with the victim is false on the face of evidence the doctor (PW-6), who examined the victim and stated in his evidence in categorical term that she did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse on victim. He next contended that except the evidence of victim that she accompanied appellant in the night, after committing sexual intercourse with her appellant took her to another village Bandpara, left her on the way to her sister’s house. It is not the case that the victim and appellant lived for a day or two together but it appears that in the same night when victim left her house, she went to house of her sister which makes the entire case of prosecution suspicious to the extent of allegation of committing sexual intercourse with victim. He also contended that in view of evidence available in record, 4 offence under Section 376 of IPC would also not be made out. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing submissions made by learned counsel for appellant, would submit that in the statement, victim in categorical terms stated that appellant by misrepresenting the fact that he will perform marriage, took her with him in a lonely place in night i.e. school campus in village, and committed sexual intercourse with her. Even if intercourse may not be forceful but it is by misrepresenting fact that he will marry her. After committing sexual intercourse with victim, she was left nearby house of her sister in another village which shows that from inception appellant was not intended to marry victim. Hence, the offence under Sections 366 and 376 (1) of IPC is made out. 7. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the records. 8. To appreciate submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, the documents exhibited and evidence brought on record by prosecution is perused. Copy of FIR is placed on record as Ex.P-2. In FIR, date of offence is mentioned as 16.3.2022 at about 22:00hrs (10:00 p.m. in night). Report was lodged on 22.3.2022 at about 10:15 a.m. i.e. after about five day from date of incident. FIR was lodged by victim. In Fir it is alleged that victim, a minor girl aged about 15 years & 5 8 months, is known to appellant, who is resident of same village. After showing his love to victim, on 16.3.2022 at about 10:00 p.m. he came to her house, allured her to elope along with him on the pretext that he will marry her. He took her to nearby school and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter he took her to Bandpara, Odhisha and left her there. She came back her home by taking lift, disclosed the incident to her father. In statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC also she narrated the same story. She was examined before trial Court as PW-1. In her court statement she stated that appellant is known to her since last one year, she studied upto Class 5th, she is not aware about her date of birth. In examination-in-chief she stated that on the date of accident i.e. 16.3.2022 at about 10:00 p.m. appellant stating that he loves her and will marry her, took her to school of vilalge and committed sexual intercourse with her. In examination-in-chief she did not say that appellant forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that thereafter appellant took her to Bandpara, Odhisha on motorcycle, he left her there and returned back. She came back her home after taking lift. Appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her twice. In her cross-examination, she admitted that in night she stayed in house of her sister situated in Bandpara. In the house of her sister, her in-laws 6 were also residing. She has not disclosed happening of incident either to her sister or any other person present there. She further stated that her sister and brother-in-law brought her back to house. From the aforementioned evidence of victim it is appearing that in FIR and statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, she has not disclosed correct facts on the point how she returned home because in above two statements she stated that after taking lift she returned her home from village Bandpara. She also stated that her maternal grandfather was Ex. Member of Legislative Assembly. Her maternal uncle is having good relations with police officials of concerned police station. She admitted that she has not disclosed fact of sexual intercourse committed by appellant twice to police or in her statement recorded under Section 161/164 CrPC. She has further stated that she has not mentioned that she returned back her house after taking lift and how it is appearing in FIR and statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she cannot explain. 9. Dr. Tanisha Dhanelia (PW-6) is the doctor who examined victim. She in her evidence has stated that victim was produced before her on 22.3.2022 i.e. after five days from the date of incident. She states that her examination report is Ex.P-34, she did not find any injury over her private part, her hymen was old ruptured. In cross-examination she stated 7 that she found teeth bite injury on both her cheeks, however, victim has not disclosed the name of person who gave teeth bite. She also admitted that while examination of victim she did not find any sign of any type of sexual intercourse and she has not disclosed in her report that victim was subjected to sexual intercourse at any time. She further clarified that in Ex.P-34 she mentioned that there is no sign of recent sexual intercourse and further stated that she did not find that victim was subjected to sexual intercourse earlier. In Para-6 of cross-examination, she stated that from her examination report Ex.P-34, there was no sexual intercourse with her. 10. In the light of above evidence available in record, it is to be considered whether allegations leveled against appellant of committing sexual intercourse with victim and finding recorded by learned trial Court to the effect is correct and in accordance with evidence available on record, or not? 11. It is well settled that evidence of prosecutrix in case of rape alone is sufficient for the purpose of conviction if inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. However, if the Court finds prosecutrix version improbable and devoid of true genesis of crime or medical evidence does not corroborate the incidence of sexual intercourse or rape, the testimony of prosecutrix can be rejected. Therefore, the Court should evaluate this evidence with care and circumspection because 8 in a given case on that lone evidence a man can be sentenced to life imprisonment. 12. In case of Aman Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2004) 4 SCC 379, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "5. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice." 13. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130, it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 9 14. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Meena reported in (2013) 4 SCC 206, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: "8. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Jain that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable and for that no corroboration is required. It has often been said that oral testimony can be classified into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In case of wholly reliable testimony of a single witness, the conviction can be founded without corroboration. This principle applies with greater vigour in case the nature of offence is such that it is committed in seclusion. In case prosecution is based on wholly unreliable testimony of a single witness, the court has no option than to acquit the accused. " 15. In case of Hem Raj Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 395, Hon’ble Supreme court, in regard to evidence of the prosecutrix, has held as under :- "6. In a case involving charge of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix is most vital. If it is found credible, if it inspires total confidence, it can be relied upon even sans corroboration. The court may, however, if it is hesitant to place implicit reliance on it, look into other evidence to lend assurance to it short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. (See State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain.) 10 Such weight is given to the prosecutrix's evidence because her evidence is on a par with the evidence of an injured witness which seldom fails to inspire confidence. Having placed the prosecutrix's evidence on such a high pedestal, it is the duty of the court to scrutinise it carefully, because in a given case on that lone evidence a man can be sentenced to life imprisonment. The court must, therefore, with its rich experience evaluate such evidence with care and circumspection and only after its conscience is satisfied about its creditworthiness rely upon it." 16. Similarly, in case of Rajoo Vs. State of MP, reported in AIR 2009 SC 858, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "The evidence of prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as the gospel truth. Additionally her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a person falsely. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved". 17. In the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above decisions, if the evidence available on record 11 is considered, it is clear that evidence of prosecutrix is not trustworthy. Story putforth by prosecutrix indicates that either she was consenting party or appellant did not commit any offence of rape with her. 18. On going through the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-4) it is seen that on the date of incident, accused-appellant came to her, expressed that he loved her he would marry her, then took her to school of village and there established physical relation with her twice. Thereafter, he took her on motorcycle to Odhisha Banpara, left her there and came back. She somehow came back home and told about incident to her parents. She admitted in her cross-examination that report of incident was lodged after two days of incident. She has further admitted that when accused-appellant came to her house, at that time she was sitting alone outside and all family members were asleep. She went along with accused on his saying that he would marry her. She admitted that she did not bite the accused or raised alarm. She has also admitted that during her whole night stay in her sister’s house at Bandpara, she did not tell anyone about the incident of rape. She has also admitted that she used to talk with accused-appellant and her family members were not aware about the same. She stated that after the incident, a village meeting was held and as the accused refused to marry her, report was lodged. If 12 the family members of accused would have agreed for her marriage with accused, report would not have been lodged. 19. According to prosecutrix, at the time when accused-appellant came to her house in night and asked her to accompany him, she was sitting in house and her family members were sleeping inside the house. If there was no consent of her, she could have raised alarm for help, but she kept silent and accompanied accused-appellant on foot. Place of incident i.e. school, was not far away from the house of prosecutrix and other residents of that locality. She walked with the appellant from her house to school. From her evidence it is clear that her hands were free and appellant was bare handed. She could have raised the cry, run away or escape, but no such attempt was made by her. If the prosecutrix could have made a hue and cry, then certainly the persons residing nearby such place could visit the spot and she could be saved. Further, according to prosecutrix, the school is surrounded by vgkrk with lock and key, meaning thereby accused and prosecutrix jumping wall went inside, which further shows that prosecutrix was a consenting party and she had willingly gone with the accused to the school. Further, prosecutrix has specifically stated in her evidence that after the incident, appellant dropped her at her sister’s house, but she has not offered any explanation as to why she did not disclose or 13 narrate the incident to her elder sister or her in-laws. During the course of medical examination, no injury, on the body of the prosecutrix or her private parts was found. Even no injury, on the person of appellant, was found. All these factors, clearly showed, that the prosecutrix, was a consenting party. 20. That apart, prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Tanisha Dhanelia (PW-6), who stated that as per her report (Ex.P-34), physical relation has never been established with prosecutrix. She did not notice any sign of recent sexual intercourse. Hymen was ruptured but there may be so many reasons It means the evidence of the prosecutrix is contrary and against the evidence of the doctor. Thus, the medical evidence belies the theory of prosecutrix that sexual intercourse was committed with her. In case of Samlu vs. State of MP reported in 1995 (I) MPWN 138, it is held that where the medical examination does not support the prosecution case and the evidence of the witnesses is contradictory to each other, then it cannot be said that the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 21. Further, in case of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 92, it was observed as under:- “9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if 14 it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the Court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The Courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen." 22. In case of Tazuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 15 SCC 566, it was held thus:- "9. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that the story is indeed improbable.” 23. That apart, incident of 16.3.2022 was reported on 22.3.2022 and reason mentioned for delay is after advise from family. This reason fails to inspire confidence and is far from being satisfactory, particularly in view of evidence of prosecutrix that 15 only when her marriage with appellant as anticipated could not materialize, she lodged FIR against appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that FIR was lodged without any delay and the fact of deliberation between family members prior to lodging of FIR indicates possibility of false implication of appellant, particularly when it is say of prosecutrix that she used to meet and talk with appellant secretly so that it may not come to notice of her family members. 24. In case of Ghansu vs State of MP, reported in 1997 (II) Short Note 73, it was held that where the FIR is lodged belatedly and the witnesses are not reliable and the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix, then the prosecution case becomes doubtful. 25. In the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shree Kant Shekari reported in (2004) 8 SCC 153, it was observed thus : “18…...In a case if the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay, it is a relevant factor….” 26. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, in the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of prosecutrix is not reliable or worth of credence. No corroborative evidence is available on record. Delay in lodging the FIR creates doubt on 16 veracity of allegations. Medical evidence also did not support allegation of sexual intercourse or rape. Thus, unreliability of testimony of solitary witness being prosecutrix, medical evidence which is apparently not supporting case of prosecution, coupled with delay of 06 days in lodging FIR, raises serious doubt on veracity of the prosecution case and as such, appellant ought to have been given benefit of doubt. In a serious offence like rape, one cannot be convicted in a light manner unless prosecution succeeds in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, learned trial Court committed error in convicting appellant on sole uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. 27. To constitute offence under Section 366 of IPC, the prosecutrix, must either be compelled by force or induced by deceitful means. In case at hand, as per statement of prosecutrix, she walked with the appellant from her house to the school, which is situated about 100 meter from her house. There is nothing in the statement of prosecutrix to suggest that appellant took her forcibly to the school and there committed rape upon her. There is also nothing on the record to suggest that any deception was practiced upon the prosecutrix. In fact, there is no evidence regarding abduction or kidnapping of prosecutrix. Thus, even offence under Section 366 of IPC is not made out against appellant. 17 28. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. Conviction of appellant under Sections 376 (1) & 366 of IPC and sentences under those sections are hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of afore-stated charges. He is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other offence. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-