1 CRA No.493/2002 2025:CGHC:61557 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 493 of 2002 Jitendra Sahu Aged About 45 Years Bilaspur, S/o Nand Ram, residing at village Mekari, P.S. Pamgarh, District, Jajgir-Champa, C.G. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through In-charge Police Station, Pamgarh, District: Janjgir-Champa ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 17.12.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19/04/2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, Sessions Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.294/2000, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence and sentenced as under:- 2 CRA No.493/2002 Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 of the IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation 1. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 23.04.2000 at about 8:00 p.m., in a village Mekari, after having meal, the victim PW-12 went out of her house for answering the nature’s call. While she was there, the present accused came to the spot, caught hold of her hand, took her to a nearby house, and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the incident was reported to the police station, Pamgarh and then the offence was registered against the appellant. During the investigation, spot map was prepared. Appellant was arrested. Vaginal slide and undergarments of victim were sent for chemical examination to FSL. After completion of investigation, final report was prepared. 2. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 3. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced 3 CRA No.493/2002 him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the overall evidence available on record for holding the appellant guilty. He submits that the trial Court did not properly consider all the evidence before finding the appellant guilty. The case of the prosecution is doubtful because the alleged incident happened at night when there was no light, making it hard to see the face of the person, who committed the alleged offence. He submits that because of animosity with the family of the appellant, the prosecution has falsely implicated the present appellant in the crime in question. The whole prosecution story is based on surmises and conjectures. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 6. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 CRA No.493/2002 9. The question which arises for consideration is, what are the circumstances which shows that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 10. Victim PW-12, stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident she had gone to village Mekri to attend a wedding ceremony of her fufa’s son, who is related to her brother. On the day of the incident, at about 8:00 PM, after having dinner, she went out into the lane from the house to attend the call of nature. At that time, the accused Jitendra Sahu came there, caught hold of her hand, and dragged her into a nearby deserted hut and committed sexual intercourse without her will. When she tried to scream, the accused pressed her mouth, and thereafter fled from the spot. Thereafter, she came to the house and narrated the incident to PW-2. This statement is corroborated by the perusal of the FIR lodged by her Ex.P-6 and it is also corroborated by her statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. PW-2 is the aunt of the victim. This witness stated that the victim is daughter of her brother. She has clearly stated in her statement that the victim had told her that the accused had forcefully removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse with her. In the statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is also mentioned that the prosecutrix informed her about the wrongful acts committed by 5 CRA No.493/2002 the accused. 12. PW-3 is the mother of victim. She stated in her evidence that the on the date of incident at night, the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her daughter. She stated that when the victim was gone for nature’s call at night, the appellant came, pressed her mouth, took her nearby hut and committed sexual intercourse with her. 13. 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 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 6 CRA No.493/2002 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.” 14. Also, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 SCC 550 held as under:- “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated 7 CRA No.493/2002 in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’) similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above 8 CRA No.493/2002 principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid from the statement of victim (PW-12) that she had gone to village Mekri to attend the wedding ceremony of her fufa’s son, who is related to her as a brother and on the date of the incident, at about 8:00 PM, after having dinner, she went out of the house on the lane to attend the call of nature. At that time, the accused came to the spot, caught hold of her hand, and forcibly dragged her into a nearby deserted hut, where he committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the accused fled from the place of occurrence. Subsequently, the prosecutrix returned to the house and narrated the incident to PW-2. In the FSL report, human sperm was found on the Article B-1, B-2 (skirt and undergarment of victim) and C-1, C-2 (vaginal slide of victim). 16. It is noteworthy to mention here that pursuant to the consent (Ex.P/9) given by the victim, she has been medically examined by the Dr. Rama Ghosh on 25.4.2000, but the said doctor has not been examied. 17. Thus, from the stage of lodging of the FIR up to the recording of their statements before the Court, the testimonies of witness PW- 2 and the prosecutrix PW-12 have remained consistent and unwavering on the material aspect that the accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix and that the prosecutrix duly communicated the occurrence of the incident to PW-2. 9 CRA No.493/2002 18. In the light of the foregoing discussion and upon a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-12) is cogent, trustworthy, and inspires confidence, and the same finds due corroboration from the testimony of PW-2. No material contradiction, omission, or infirmity has been brought on record so as to disbelieve the prosecution version or to create any doubt regarding the occurrence of the incident. The evidence is further substantiated by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which detected human sperm on the articles B-1 and B-2 (the skirt and undergarment of the victim) and on C-1 and C-2 (vaginal slides of the victim), thereby confirming the occurrence of sexual offence. 19. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and are in consonance with the settled principles of law. This Court finds no illegality, perversity, or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence so as to warrant interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is affirmed. 20. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged. 10 CRA No.493/2002 He shall surrender forthwith before the concerned trial Court forthwith serving remaining sentence as awarded by the trial Court, failing which he shall be taken into custody by the trial Court. 21. The Appellant be informed that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 22. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep