1 CRA No. 763 of 2016 2025:CGHC:49863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 763 of 2016 Pappu Patil S/o Lallan Ram Patil Aged About 21 Years R/o- Village - Lakhanpur, P.S. - Jhil - Mil, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O.- Jhil-Mil, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 07/10/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 71/2014 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted under RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.10.09 16:18:57 +0530 2 CRA No. 763 of 2016 Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/-, with default stipulation. 2. In the present case there were three accused persons before the trial Court and out of them two have been acquitted and the present appellant has been convicted. Initially charge under Section 376 (d) IPC & Section 4 of POCSO against the present appellant, and under Sections 376 (d) and 366 (a) of the IPC against the co-accused persons were framed, but the judgment has been delivered acquitting co-accused Ram Kumar and Sonu @ Ishwar and convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the prosecutrix (PW-1) lodged a report at Police Station Jhilmili alleging, inter alia, that on 07.06.2014, at about 7:30 p.m., when she had gone to see off her friend to some distance and was returning therefrom, the appellant caught hold of her, dragged her towards a field, and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When she raised an alarm, her mother and brother reached the spot, whereupon the appellant fled from the scene. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix (PW-1) also made a complaint to the senior police officials stating that on the date of the incident, while she was returning after seeing off her friend, the appellant along with co-accused Ramkumar and Sonu caught hold of her hand, gagged her mouth with a scarf, took her to a field, and there the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her while the co-accused persons held her hands. 3 CRA No. 763 of 2016 Thereafter, the medical examinations of the prosecutrix (PW-1) as well as the appellant were conducted; a spot map was prepared; articles were seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur; statements of witnesses were recorded; and on finding sufficient evidence against the appellant, he was arrested. Subsequently, a charge- sheet was prepared and submitted before the concerned Court. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations and pleaded innocence, asserting that he had been falsely implicated. However, no witness was examined in defence. After appreciating the entire evidence and statements of the witnesses, the learned trial Court did not find sufficient evidence regarding the presence of co-accused persons, namely, Ramkumar Sahu and Sonu, and accordingly, they were acquitted. However, the evidence of forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant with the prosecutrix was found proved, and therefore, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged. It is contended that the conviction is based merely on assumptions and presumptions. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements and depositions of the prosecution witnesses. 4 CRA No. 763 of 2016 Emphasizing the acquittal of the co-accused persons, learned counsel further submits that when the co-accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court on the ground of lack of evidence, the appellant is also entitled to the same benefit, which has not been extended to him, and therefore, the finding of conviction is contrary to law. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is therefore contended that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. After considering the prosecution case, the submissions of the parties, and the fact that the co-accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court on the ground of lack of evidence against them, the only question that remains for consideration before this Court is whether the same benefit should be extended to the appellant, who is alleged to be the main culprit in the present case. 8. The prosecutrix (PW-1), in her examination-in-chief, stated that on the date of the incident, while she had gone to see off her friend and was returning therefrom, the appellant met her and asked her to stop. When she refused and proceeded towards her house, the appellant caught hold of her hand. Thereafter, the co-accused persons gagged her mouth with a 5 CRA No. 763 of 2016 scarf and took her towards a field, where the appellant committed rape upon her, and at that time, the co-accused Sonu and Ramkumar caught hold of her hands. Subsequently, she lodged a report at the police station. In her cross-examination (para 7), this witness categorically admitted that when she was returning after seeing off her friend, she was stopped by the appellant. She further admitted in para 10 that she did not remember who had lodged the report. She also admitted that after 2–3 days of lodging the report, she came to know that the report was partially correct, and as she did not have a copy of the report, she made a further complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, which was written by her father. 9. The father (PW-2) of the prosecutrix, in his examination-in-chief, stated that on the date of the incident, they were sitting in front of their house. On that day, one girl, 'X', had come to their house, and the prosecutrix had gone to see her off. When the prosecutrix did not return for about 15 minutes, he went in search of her and found her lying unconscious approximately 100 meters away in a field where the accused persons were also present. He stated that the co-accused persons were holding the hands of the prosecutrix while the appellant was committing rape upon her. Upon seeing him, all the accused fled from the spot. In his cross-examination (para 6), he stated that in his police statement he had mentioned that the co-accused persons were holding the hands of the prosecutrix; if the same is not reflected in the police statement, he does not know the reason. 6 CRA No. 763 of 2016 10. Dr. Rashmi Kumar (PW-5), in her examination-in-chief, stated that on medically examining the prosecutrix, she found no injury on the external parts of her body. On internal examination, there was redness and swelling of the ovary. The hymen was ruptured, and the prosecutrix experienced pain upon insertion of one finger. She prepared two vaginal secretion slides and handed them over to the constable present. She opined that sexual intercourse had taken place; however, a definite conclusion required microscopic examination of the slides. 11. The FSL report in the present case is marked as Ex.P-14. According to the report, Article-A, i.e., the vaginal slides of the prosecutrix, and Article-C, i.e., the underwear of the appellant, were found to contain human sperm. However, the serologist’s report in respect of Article-C could not be ascertained due to insufficient spermatozoa detected on the spot. 12. The prosecutrix (PW-1), in her statement (Ex.P-8) recorded before police on 08/06/2014, stated that on 07/06/2014, at about 7:30 p.m., when she was returning after seeing off her friend, the appellant caught hold of her and took her to the field where he forcibly committed rape with her. When she raised an alarm, her mother and brother came to the spot, whereupon the appellant fled away. She signed the said statement. 13. The supplementary statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was subsequently recorded vide Ex.P-7 on 27.6.2014, wherein she stated that on 07/06/2014, at about 7:30 p.m., when she was returning after seeing off her friend, the appellant along with co-accused persons met her on 7 CRA No. 763 of 2016 the way. They stopped her, and when she replied that she was going home, the appellant caught hold of her hand. Co-accused Ramkumar and Sonu gagged her mouth with her own scarf and took her towards a field, where the appellant committed rape upon her while the co-accused persons held her hands. After some time, when her father, mother, and younger brother came, the accused persons fled from the spot. 14. The statement of the father (PW-2) of the prosecutrix recorded before the police station vide Ex.P-6 on 08/06/2014 reveals that while the prosecutrix had gone to see off her friend and did not return for a considerable period, he, along with his wife and son, went in search of her and saw that the appellant was committing rape upon her and, seeing them, he fled away. Similarly, the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix made before the police is that when the prosecutrix did not return after seeing off her friend, they went in search of her and found that the appellant was committing rape upon her. 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right 8 CRA No. 763 of 2016 from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more recise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 9 CRA No. 763 of 2016 16. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Nirmal Premkumar and Another v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260 has held at para 14 & 15 as under:- “14. Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, this Court laid down that although the victim's solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix's testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae.. It was held thus: "31. No doubt, it is true 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. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences. 32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, 10 CRA No. 763 of 2016 her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by the public prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant." 15. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly 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, out the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning o the end (minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial statement the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution's ase. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence ases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.” 17. Upon careful perusal of the statements of the prosecutrix recorded at different stages, it is evident that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies which cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version. In her 161 statement recorded on 08/06/2014 (Ex.P- 8), the prosecutrix stated that while she was returning after seeing off her friend, the appellant alone caught hold of her, dragged her into a field, 11 CRA No. 763 of 2016 and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that on hearing her cries, her mother and brother reached the spot, whereupon the appellant fled away. In this version, there is no reference whatsoever to the presence of any co-accused persons or their alleged role in the incident. However, in her subsequent supplementary statement recorded on 27.6.2014 vide Ex.P-7, the prosecutrix gave an altogether different version, wherein she stated that the appellant along with co-accused Ramkumar and Sonu met her on the way. She alleged that while she refused to stop and proceeded towards her house, the appellant caught hold of her hand, and the co-accused persons gagged her mouth with her scarf and took her to a nearby field. She further alleged that the co-accused persons held her hands while the appellant committed rape upon her. This subsequent statement materially contradicts her earlier version, not only with respect to the presence of co-accused persons but also as to how the alleged act was committed and who reached the spot first. 18. The aforesaid contradiction becomes more apparent when the 161 statements of her parents are examined. Both the father (PW-2) and mother of the prosecutrix, in their police statements, have stated that when the prosecutrix did not return for a long time, they, along with their son, went in search of her and found the appellant committing rape upon her, after seeing them he fled away from the spot. However, neither of them mentioned the presence of co-accused persons at the spot in their initial statements. These inconsistencies between the versions of the 12 CRA No. 763 of 2016 prosecutrix and her parents, as well as the two divergent statements of the prosecutrix herself, go to the root of the matter and render her testimony doubtful. Such contradictions on material particulars relating to the manner of occurrence, the presence of co-accused persons, and the persons who arrived first on the scene, create a serious dent in the reliability of the prosecution case. 19. Furthermore, as per the version of the prosecutrix in her later statement, when the appellant was committing rape upon her and the co-accused persons were holding her hands in an open agricultural field, it is difficult to comprehend that she did not sustain even a single injury on her wrist, back, or any other external part of her body. The medical examination conducted by Dr. Rashmi Kumar (PW-5) clearly records that no external injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix. The absence of any injury, despite the alleged resistance in an open field and the involvement of multiple persons, creates further doubt regarding the manner of occurrence as narrated by the prosecutrix. These aspects, when read conjointly with the material contradictions in her statements, make the prosecution story appear improbable and unreliable. 20. It is also pertinent to note that in her cross-examination (para 10), the prosecutrix candidly admitted that she did not remember who had lodged the report and that after two to three days she came to know that the report was only partially correct, whereafter a further complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police by her father. This admission casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the first information report itself and 13 CRA No. 763 of 2016 shows that even the prosecutrix was uncertain about the contents and authorship of her own complaint. In fact, on the date of incident itself i.e. 7.6.2014 the victim herself lodged the report at 9.30 pm. Such a fundamental inconsistency at the inception of the prosecution creates a serious doubt upon credibility of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. 21. In view of the aforesaid contradictions, inconsistencies, and improbabilities appearing in the statements of the prosecutrix, coupled with the absence of any external injury on her body and the acquittal of the co-accused persons by the trial Court on the ground of lack of evidence, this Court finds it unsafe to place implicit reliance upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without independent corroboration. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, which must necessarily enure to his favour. 22. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 14 CRA No. 763 of 2016 24. The trial Court record, along with a copy of this judgment, be sent back immediately to the concerned trial Court for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri