1 2025:CGHC:6411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 465 of 2007  Pilaram Aged About 35 Years S/o Anandiram Sahu, R/o Bakma, Thana- Bagbahra, Distt- Mahasamund C.G. ---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh, Through Thana Baghahra, Distt Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Ms. Pushpalata Khalkho, PL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 04.02.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.06.2007, passed in Session Trial No.39/2006 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mahasamund, (CG), convicted the accused/appellant under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with usual default clause. 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 01.7.2005 present appellant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim/prosecutrix. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 376(1) of IPC and Section 3(1)(12) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 15 witnesses. Statements of accused person was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence available against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant herein in the manner as described above, however, acquitted him for the offence under the SC/ST Act. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly appreciated the facts and evidence while passing the impugned judgment. Trial Court has not seen the contradiction and omission present in the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. Trial Court has wrongly reached to the conclusion that victim/prosecutrix (PW-1) has been ravished by the accused/appellant against her will. As per evidence and case of the prosecution, victim was a consenting party and the alleged FIR has been lodged by the victim against the appellant only because husband of victim had seen the alleged incident. The present 3 appellant and the victim/prosecutrix were known to each other since long and this fact has been deposed by the prosecutrix in her deposition. Seizure witness, memorandum witness as also independent witness have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Trial Court ignored the fact that nothing has been found in the medical report of prosecutrix/victim though there is allegation of rape. Medical evidence also shows that there was no sign of forcible sexual intercourse on the body of the prosecutrix. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by appellant. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 9. PW-1/Prosecutrix in her evidence has stated that on the date of alleged incident, when she was returning from the Bakma market on the way appellant caught her and took her to the field and, thereafter, committed forceful sexual intercourse with her against her will. On hearing of her noise, her husband and his friend (Babulal) reached on spot, caught the accused/appellant and, thereafter, beaten both of us and during process of defending herself, her bangles were broken. Thereafter, they were taken to the Bedram Kotwar and, thereafter, to 4 their village where about 100 people of the villagers gathered and everyone came to know about the alleged incident, due to which, her husband feels very bad and he become very upset then he told her that they are defamed in the whole village and, thereafter, they went to lodge the FIR against the appellant. She further stated that 10. PW-2/husband of the victim in his evidence has stated that present appellant/accused used to visit his house for the last one year. On the date of alleged incident, he saw his wife alongwith the appellant in compromising position, due to which, he has beaten his wife and in order to defend herself she kept her hand on her face. He further stated that alleged incident has been spread over the village. 11. PW-3/Babulal in his evidence has stated that on the date of alleged incident, he saw that appellant/accused has committed sexual intercourse with the victim. 12. PW-5/Kawalram Sahu in his evidence has stated that on the date of alleged incident, husband of the victim told him that he caught her wife alongwith the appellant. 13. PW-6/Sheikh Mohammad in his evidence has stated that on the date of incident, PW-2/husband of the victim took his wife/victim and appellant before him and told that he caught the appellant alongwith his wife/victim out of the village. 14. PW-10/Dr. Alka, who examined the victim stated in her evidence that during examination, she found abrasion in her both hands, however, there is no sign of any internal injury in her private part. 15. From the above evidence, it is reflecting that appellant used to visit the house of the victim prior to the incident; alleged incident was 5 occurred out of the village and there is no any eye-witness of incident except Babulal/PW-3 who is friend of the husband of the victim. Further, it is also appearing that injury/abrasion found in the hands of the victim may be caused by hitting by her husband on the date of incident. 16. Considering above facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of counsel for the parties, statements of the prosecution witnesses and other material/medical evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that appellant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim/PW-1 against her will, therefore, appellant is entitled for benefit of about. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 05.06.2007 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 376(1) of IPC. 18. Appellant is reported to be on bail, hence, his bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. 19. Record of case be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-