1 2025:CGHC:56308 NAFR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 20.08.2025 19.11.2025 -- 20.11.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 20.08.2025 Judgment delivered on: 19.11.2025 CRA No. 636 of 2007 1 - Rajkumar @ Bhogaoo, S/o Harishankar, Aged about 18 years R/o Gram Chattarpur, Uperpara, Kalyanpur, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Surguja, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through District- Magistrate, District- Sarguja (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant : Ms. Anshu Ratre appears on behalf of Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) / Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 123/2006, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376(1) of IPC R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.09.2006, at about 3:00 PM, the prosecutrix, along with her elder sister, had gone to a field in Village Chhattarpur to cut grass. At that time, the accused, who belongs to the Bargah caste, allegedly came there, caught hold of her, threw her on the ground in the field, and committed rape upon her against her will and without her consent. Upon hearing her cries, some persons reached the spot, to whom she narrated the incident. She also informed her mother and brother about the 3 occurrence on the same day, while her father was out of the village. When her father returned the next day, a village panchayat meeting was convened. After the panchayat proceedings, a report was lodged. On the basis of the report, a criminal investigation was initiated. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 376(1) of the IPC, to which, appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication in the case. However, the appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.06.2007, found the evidence adduced by the prosecution to be trustworthy and accordingly convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. 4 Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution did not produce any admissible or reliable evidence against the appellant. The prosecutrix was a major and was in a consensual love relationship with the appellant, who is her neighbour, and upon being seen in a compromising position by her sister, the prosecutrix was compelled by her parents to lodge a false allegation of rape against the appellant. He further submits that there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution story. The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution has failed to examine any material witness or produce evidence as required by law to sustain the conviction of the appellant. The impugned judgment suffers from material illegality, perversity, and improper appreciation of evidence, and therefore deserves to be set aside/quashed. 6. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) with Hari Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the trial Court has rightly appreciated 5 the evidence on record. It is contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix is clear, consistent, and trustworthy and requires no corroboration. The alleged delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained by the prosecution, as the matter was first placed before the village panchayat. The State Counsel further submits that minor contradictions, if any, do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The finding of the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and no ground is made out for interference in the well-reasoned judgment. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed the charges under Section 376 (1) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced him as prescribed in para 1 of this judgment. 10. Prosecutrix (P.W.-1) stated that at about 3:00 p.m., she had gone to cut grass near the dam in her village, accompanied by her 6 sister. While she was engaged in cutting grass, the accused allegedly arrived at the spot and removed her saree. It is further stated that thereafter the accused threw her on the ground. She also stated that her sister was present at a short distance from the place of occurrence and she did not intervene as her leg was amputated, due to which she was unable to move. She further stated that the report of the incident was lodged at the Harijan Police Station, Ambikapur, after a delay of two to three days. In para 12 of her cross-examination, she stated that her sister was at a distance of about 50 feet from the place of occurrence. She further voluntarily stated that when she initially raised an alarm, her elder sister could not hear her voice. Further in para 13, she denied the suggestion of defence that her elder sister had complained to their mother that she was with the accused. She further denied the suggestion that her elder sister had informed their mother that she was having an illicit relationship with the accused. 11. Mother of the prosecutrix (P.W.-2) stated that her elder daughter had come to house and informed her that the accused was holding her daughter (prosecutrix). She further stated that her elder daughter told her that when she attempted to free the prosecutrix from the accused, the accused struck her with a sickle, causing an injury on her leg. In her cross-examination, she stated that the prosecutrix had 7 informed her that the accused was pulling her saree. She further stated that her daughter did not disclose anything beyond this. She added that she had noticed a swollen injury on her elder daughter’s leg. 12. Sister of the prosecutrix (P.W.-3) stated that on the date of incident at around 4 p.m., prosecutrix had gone to the edge of a field to cut grass and she had accompanied her. It was further stated that the accused had come to the place where the grass was being cut and had allegedly started pulling prosecutrix and her saree. The witness stated that the accused had struck her on the leg with a sickle, causing an injury, after which she ran home. She further stated that the prosecutrix later told her that the accused had raped her. In her cross-examination, she admitted this suggestion of defence that her aunt (mother) had scolded the prosecutrix and had questioned her as to why she was present there even though her elder sister, that is, the witness herself, had already left that place. 13. Father of the prosecutrix (P.W.-4) stated that on the date of the incident, he had gone to visit Village Haripur and had returned home after 2–3 days. He further stated that upon his return, his wife informed him that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He thereafter informed the village elders that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with his 8 daughter, but the village council stated that they could not take any action in respect of such a serious matter. He stated that he then proceeded to the police station and lodged a report. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the panchayat had taken any decision in the matter or that the father of the accused had agreed to pay a fine of five thousand rupees. 14. Dr. Smt. Sarita Singh (P.W.-6) examined the prosecutrix and stated that the prosecutrix had complained of pain. She further stated that, in her opinion, the prosecutrix had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. She added that, for a definite opinion regarding the age of the prosecutrix, she had advised an X-ray examination. She proved her report in this regard vide Ex.P/2. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had not found any injury on the body of the prosecutrix. 15. Dr. M.K. Jain (P.W.-7) conducted radiological test of the prosecutrix and in his opinion, the age of the prosecutrix was found to be between 18 and 19 years. He gave his report vide Ex.P/3 in this regard. 16. From the testimony of Dr. Smt. Sarita Singh (P.W.-6), it is evident that sexual intercourse had taken place within 96 hours prior to the medical examination of the prosecutrix. This conclusion is supported by her report (Ex.P/2) as well as by her statement in paragraph 7 of her cross-examination. However, as per the report of Dr. M.K. Jain (P.W.-7), the radiological age of the prosecutrix 9 was assessed to be between 18 and 19 years. 17. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) stated that her sister and other persons were present at the spot and admitted the suggestion of the defence that her mother had scolded her and had attempted to assault her. The sister of the prosecutrix (P.W.-3) also admitted the defence suggestion that the mother of the prosecutrix had scolded her. She further admitted that when the accused was talking to the prosecutrix and she objected to such conversation, a quarrel ensued between her and the accused. 18. In the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paras 20 and 22, as follows:- “20. Keeping the above evidence available on record, when we analyse the case of the prosecution as projected, we find that apart from the total prevaricating statement of the prosecutrix herself in her oral version before the court, the other two witnesses, PWs 10 and 11 who were none other than her niece and nephew, had not supported the story of the prosecution. Leaving aside the version of the prosecutrix, we wonder why Noju (PW 10), a minor girl child should at all make a statement totally conflicting with the case of the prosecution. The prosecutrix being her maternal aunt, there is no reason for her to spin a different story and 10 let her down. Going by her version, the accused persons were never seen in her house on the date of occurrence. She being a minor child, the trial court ascertained her capability to depose as a witness. When we examine the nature of queries made by the learned trial Judge to the said witness, we find that her replies were all cogent and she knew for what purpose she was standing before the court. She was very much aware that she should not utter any falsehood. The court was, therefore, convinced of her composure and only thereafter proceeded to record her statement. The court itself pointed out the accused present before the court and asked her as to whether they were present in her house on the date of incident, to which she replied without any hesitation and deposed that they were not present. She went one step ahead and made it clear that on that night nothing happened at all. Again her brother Jitender (PW 11) stated that he heard two persons quarrelling with his aunt. He also made it clear that apart from the said quarrel and on his making a hue and cry both of them ran away and nothing else happened. 22*. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court 11 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 as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and every one 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 12 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 such similar tests to be applied, can it 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 precise, 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.” 19. In light of above, in the present case, the testimony of the prosecutrix is required to be scrutinised with due care, especially where the conviction rests primarily on her sole statement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu (supra), has categorically held that to sustain a conviction solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, she must qualify the standard of a “sterling witness,” whose deposition remains wholly consistent, natural, unassailable, and corroborated by other material evidence. 13 20. In the present case, the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) has made inconsistent statements regarding material particulars. In her examination-in-chief, she alleged that the accused removed her saree and threw her on the ground. However, in her cross- examination, she admitted that several persons, including her sister, were present near the place of occurrence and that there was a quarrel only when the accused was talking to her. Her own admission that her mother scolded her and attempted to assault her creates a serious doubt about the circumstances surrounding the incident. 21. The testimony of her sister (P.W.-3), who is projected as an eyewitness, also suffers from material contradictions. While she claimed in examination-in-chief that the accused struck her with a sickle and that she ran away, she admitted in cross-examination that their mother scolded the prosecutrix and questioned her as to why she remained at the spot even after her sister (P.W.-3) had left. This admission undermines her version regarding her presence throughout the occurrence. These inconsistencies are irreconcilable and cast a serious shadow on the prosecution case. 22. The medical evidence does not support the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse. Dr. Smt. Sarita Singh (P.W.-6) found no injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. Though she opined that sexual intercourse had occurred within 96 hours, such opinion cannot independently establish that the intercourse was forcible, 14 particularly in the absence of corroborative injuries or consistent ocular testimony. 23. The delay of two to three days in lodging the FIR, though explained, appears doubtful when examined in light of the admitted conduct of the family members. Further, the defence suggestions regarding a quarrel between the prosecutrix and the appellant, and the scolding by the mother, find partial support from the prosecution witnesses themselves, thereby weakening the case of the prosecution. 24. Having regard to the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecutrix does not qualify as a “sterling witness” within the meaning laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu (supra). Her version is neither consistent nor free from material contradictions, nor is it corroborated by independent or scientific evidence. On the contrary, the inconsistencies in the oral testimony, lack of medical injuries, and the admissions elicited from prosecutrix (P.W.-1) and sister of the prosecutrix (P.W.-3) cumulatively create a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. 25. In criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt must always enure to the accused. Where the testimony of the prosecutrix is not of sterling quality and is contradicted by other attending circumstances, the Court cannot sustain a conviction solely on such shaky evidence. 15 26. Consequently, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 376(1) IPC cannot be affirmed. The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 27. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30.06.2007 is hereby set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 376(1) of the IPC are set aside, and he is acquitted of the said charge. 28. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 29. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV