1 2025:CGHC:57221 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 01.09.2025 25.11.2025 -- 25.11.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 939 of 2012 Judgment Reserved on : 01.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 25.11.2025  Bhurulal, S/o Heeralal Satnami, aged about 60 years, R/o Kotadabri, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through : District Magistrate, Janjgir- Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant. - Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L. Hon'bel Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (C.A.V. Judgment ) 2 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 223/2011 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as under :- CONVICTION SENTENCE Section 450 of IPC. R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 30 days. Section 376 of IPC. R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 30 days. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18.07.2011 at around 2.00 PM, when the prosecutrix was all alone in the house and her maternal grand-mother (Nani) and sister had gone out, the accused/appellant came to her house, gagged her mouth, tide her hands with cloth (dupatta), removed clothes of the prosecutrix after tearing, lay her down on bed and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and thereafter ran away from there. The prosecutrix somehow managed to open the nod of dupatta, came out of the house and screamed hurling abuses. At the same time, maternal grand-mother (Nani) of the prosecutrix came there, whom the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident and after that the incident was informed to Narayan (PW-6), Parshad. The report of the incident was lodged by the Prosecutrix with her 3 maternal grand-mother in police station Janjgir Champa and an FIR (Ex.7) for the offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376 IPC was lodged against the accused/appellant on 22.7.2011. After obtaining the consent of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P-16 and due permission from the S.D.M, vide Ex.P-1, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination on 22.07.2011 to B.D.M. Hospital, Champa vide Ex.P-9, where she was medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) Anita Shrivastava (PW-2) and gave her report under Ex.P-2 noticing following injuries/symptoms :- (i) The prosecutrix was conscious, co- operative, well oriented and mentally sound. (ii) Her secondary sexual character like breasts, labia minora and majora were fully developed. (iii) Axillary and pubic hairs were scanty developed. Her LMP was 10 days back. Her introitus were admitting two fingers with difficulty. (iv) Hymen old ruptured. Labia minora and majora were congested. White discharge coming through introitus. (v) Two vaginal smear slides were made and handed over to constable. For age determination, the prosecutrix was advice for x-ray. The Doctor has opined that the prosecutrix was habitual for intercourse. 3. The vaginal slides of the prosecutrix were seized vide Ex.P- 10 and handed over to the Constable for its chemical 4 examination. Panty, bed sheet, salwar, kurta of the prosecutrix stained with sperm like stain were seized vide Ex.P-15. According to x-ray report (Ex.P-17), Dr. R. Jitpure (PW-8) opined the age of the prosecutrix to be 15 to 17 year with two years variation on either sides. On 04.08.2011, the accused/appellant was sent for medical examination to B.D.M. Hospital, Champa, vide Ex.P-20, where he was medically examined by Dr. Manish Shrivatava (PW-10) and gave his report under Ex.P-18 opining that the accused/appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Panty and full pant of the accused/appellant was seized vide Ex.P-12 from him. On 25.10.2011, seized articles i.e. bed sheet and panty were sent for its chemical examination to FSL vide Ex.P-4 and P-6. On 29.10.2011, spot map was prepared by Patwari vide Ex.P-11. 4. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Sections 450, 376 IPC and the accordingly charges were also framed by the learned Trial Court, to which the accused/appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded 5 innocence and false implication. One defence witness namely Bisahin Bai (DW-1) was also examined in the case. 6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is delay of about 05 days in lodging the FIR but no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution in this regard, which is fatal to the prosecution case. There is ample evidence on record to show that false allegation of rape has been levelled against the accused/appellant because he had advice the prosecutrix and her relatives not to indulge in the illegal activity. The statement of prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities and there is material improvement in her statement, which render her testimony doubtful in view of the fact that the medical report also does not support her version. The incident alleged to have taken place in the day light at around 2.00 pm and after four days of the incident, the prosecutrix was medically examined, as such, the medical evidence alone cannot be made basis for appellant’s conviction. Learned counsel also submits that the medical evidence does not corroborate the case of the prosecution, and in-fact, it gets corroborated by the defence of the accused/appellant. The evidence of Prosecutrix (PW- 6 7) and her relatives do not support the prosecution case. No external on internal injury was found on the body of prosecutrix and there is no sign of forceful intercourse with prosecutrix. Learned counsel also submits that Narayan Sewak (PW-6) has not supported the prosecution case and he himself stated that the appellant was victimized in the alleged offence because he (appellant) had advice the prosecutrix and her relative about illegal activity of the prosecutrix of prostitution. The evidence of Prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and not trustworthy. The evidence available on record not at all sufficient to hold the appellant guilty and looking to the improbably story on the part of the prosecutrix, which has not been supported by independent witnesses and merely because vaginal swabs and salwar had semen stains, it would be at least evidence of commission of rape and it has not been proved by the prosecution that the semen stains found on the article were co-relate with the accused/appellant but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate all the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and wrongly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused/appellant may be acquitted. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sunil Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 1 SCC 742 and in Maheshwar Tigga 7 Vs. The State of Jharkhan [Cr.A No.635/2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 393/2020)] 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the appellant. So, the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 450 and 376 IPC & after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant accordingly. 11. Prosecutrix (PW-7) has stated that on the date of incident i.e. 18.07.2011, when her maternal grand-mother had gone out and she was all alone in the house, at the relevant time, the accused/appellant came entered her house, gagged her mouth, tide her hands, lay her down on bed and committee forceful sexual intercourse with her. She has also submitted that when her maternal grand-mother came to house at around 3.00 pm, she narrated the incident to her. After that, her maternal grand-mother informed the incident to Narayan (PW-6), Parshad, and in this regard, a panchayat meeting 8 was convened and when nothing concrete has come out in the panchayat meeting, an FIR (Ex.P-7) was lodged against the accused/appellant and police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-14 and she admits her signature thereon. She has also stated that the police had seized her panty, solapuri bed sheet, semen like stain and old used maroon colour kurta vide Ex.P-15. The police has also obtained her consent for her medical examination vide Ex.P-16 and she admits her signature on ‘A to A’ part therein. In cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that they lodged an FIR after three days of the incident. The prosecutrix has explained that after the incident, a panchayat meeting was convened which continued for 2 days and when no decision was taken in the panchayat, she lodged the FIR. This witness has admitted in para 20 of her cross examination that the son of accused/appellant had come to her and her grand parents (Nana-Nani) to compromise the matter and they had agreed for compromise after giving Rs.85,000/-. She has also admitted that accused’s family member told them to compromise the matter on Rs.65,000/- saying that they are poor and can’t give Rs.85,000/-. Further, in para 23, the prosecutrix, has stated that she has no knowledge that the accused/appellant had complained Narayan Sewayak (Parshad) about the prostitution business being operated in her house or not. She denied that they falsely implicated the 9 accused/appellant after hatching conspiracy. The prosecutrix had denied that her maternal grand-mother had taken her to the house of Narayan Sewayak on 19.04.2012 but she self stated that she herself went to his house. She has denied that she went to the house of Narayan saying that he should keep her. The prosecutrix herself stated that she was being called raffish and she had gone there to prove this as to who was calling her raffish. She has also denied that she threatened Narayan to implicate him in rape case. She has also denied that police had picked up her from Narayan’s house. She has stated that she herself had come from Narayan’s house. 12. Sadhram Satnami (PW-9) is the maternal grand-father (Nana) of the Prosecutrix. He has stated that on the date of incident, at around 8.00 AM, he had gone for labour work. Almost every one in the house had gone out for work and the prosecutrix was all alone in the house. When his (this witness’s) wife came to house at around 3.00 PM, the prosecutrix informed his wife that the accused/appellant committed rape with her. When he came to house at around 9.00 PM, his wife informed him about the commission of rape with prosecutrix by the accused/appellant. This witness has also stated that after the incident they went to Narayan’ (Parshad) house to inform him about the incident but he kept them wandering 10 for 2-3 days saying that he would arrange a settlement with the accused and thereafter, his wife and prosecutrix lodged a report in police station. This witness has admitted this suggestion that when he came to house, his wife was abusing saying that a thief has entered the house. He has stated that his wife had gone to Narayan’s (Parshad) house then Narayan told that he would get the matter compromised after conveying meeting. Narayan had come to his house, but other persons did not come, therefore, the meeting could not be held. He has stated that the next day of the incident, Narayan had abused due to which the meeting could not be held. The meeting could also not be held on 3rd day, thereafter a report was lodged in police station. This witness has admitted that an effort was made by the accused/appellant for compromising the matter but he denied this suggestion that Rs.85,000/- was demanded for arriving at compromise. 13. Sonmati Bai Satnami (PW-11) is maternal grand-mother of the prosecutrix. She has stated that when she came to house at around 3.00 after finishing her work in the school, the prosecutrix informed her that at around 2.00 PM, the accused/appellant came to house and committed rape with her. This witness, in para 8 of her cross-examination, has stated that she had informed Narayan about the incident but he kept wandering them for 2-3 days saying that he would 11 finalize/compromise the matter in village but no output came from the meeting. She has also stated that she wanted Narayan Sewayak to take any decision on the date of incident itself, and they would not have filed a report if Narayan Sewayak had taken any decision. She has also stated that except Narayan Sewayak she did not inform anyone about the incident. This witness has denied this suggestion that accused/appellant made complaint before Narayan Sewayak that the prosecutrix was involved in prostitution and Narayan Sewayak told the same to her. No one has stated about this. She has also denied this suggestion that they have falsely implicated the accused/appellant as he had complained about prostitution of prosecutrix. 14. Dr. Anita Shrivastava (PW-2) is the doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix and gave her report under Ex.P-2 opining that the prosecutrix was habitual for sexual intercourse. For age determination, the doctor has referred the prosecutrix to Radiologist for x-ray. 15. Dr. R. Jitpure (PW-8) conducted x-ray of prosecutrix and gave his report under Ex.P-17 and found that the age of prosecutrix was about 15-17 year with two years variation on either side. 16. The evidence of prosecutrix (PW-7) and her grand parents clearly goes to show that they had made complaint against 12 the accused/appellant before Narayan Prasad Sewayak (PW-6), who is Parshad of the ward, and PW-6 has stated that the accused/appellant had made complaint against the prosecutrix with regard to her being involved in prostitution, which was also convened to maternal grand-mother of the prosecutrix, and at the relevant time, she started abusing in the accused/appellant but at that time the accused/appellant was not present there. The prosecution has declared PW-6 hostile and cross-examined him but he denied his police statement Ex.P-13. PW-6 has admitted this suggestion of defence that the accused/appellant had complained him that when Prosecutrix remains alone in the house, some strangers keep coming due to which the atmosphere of the neighborhood is spoiling. 17. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that no document with regard to age of the prosecutrix has been filed by the prosecution and the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence of prosecutrix, her grand parents and radiologist report (Ex.P-17), recorded the finding that the prosecutrix on the date of incident was about 15 years of age but it is clear from the statement of PW-9, maternal grand-father, that he had not disclosed the age of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix (PW-7) has stated in para 7 of her evidence that she does not know her date of birth but she is aged about 15 years. The Doctor PW-8, in his report 13 (Ex.P-17) opined that the age of prosecutrix was 15-17 year and there is two years plus and minus variation on either side. It is clear that no school certificate or birth certificate has been filed by the prosecution regarding the age of the prosecutrix and looking to the report (Ex.P-17) of Dr. R. Jitpure (PW-8), the prosecutrix’s age, considering two years variation on either side, can be determined as 19 years (17 year age plus 2 year variation). So, the prosecution has completely failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix, at the time of incident, was below 16 years of age. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sunil (supra) held in para 24 and 25 as under :- “24. Dr. Verma P.W.1, who had clinically examined the prosecutrix, found that her secondary sex characters were well developed. The short question in the facts and circumstances of this case remains to be determined is whether the prosecutrix was a minor? Dr. Sadhna Verma, PW1 who examined the prosecutrix referred her for verification to the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist. The failure of getting the prosecutrix examined from the Dental Surgeon or the Radiologist despite the fact that she was referred to them by Dr. Sadhna Verma, PW1 is a serious flaw in the prosecution version. We are not laying down as a rule that all these tests must be performed in all cases, but in the instant case, in absence of primary evidence, 14 reports of the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist would have helped us in arriving at the conclusion regarding the age of the prosecutrix. 25. The prosecution also failed to produce any admission form of the school which would have been primary evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix. The school leaving certificate produced by the prosecution was also procured on 12.9.1996, six days after the incident and three days after the arrest of the appellant. As per that certificate also, she joined the school in the middle of the session and left the school in the middle of the session. The attendance in the school of 100 days is also not reliable. The prosecutrix was admitted in the school by Ashok Kumar, her brother. The said Ashok Kumar was not examined. The alleged school leaving certificate on the basis of which the age was entered in the school was not produced.” 19. In the present case also, it is clear that there is no report of dental surgeon and school certificate on record to arrive at definite conclusion that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. In such circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the prosecutrix at the time of incident was minor. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix below 16 years of age beyond all reasonable doubt, and this Court set aside the finding of learned Trial Court holding the prosecutrix below 16 years of age. 20. As regards allegation of commission of forceful sexual 15 intercourse by the appellant, the independent witness Narayan Prasad Sewayak (PW-6) has admitted this suggestion of denfence that the accused/appellant had complained against prosecutrix of her being involved in prostitution and then quarrel took place between the accused/appellant & the prosecutrix and her maternal grand-mother. The prosecutrix has also admitted in para 24 of her evidence that she went to Narayan’s (PW-6) house and she self stated that : “esjh ukuh us 19-4-12 dks eq>s ukjk;.k lsok;d ds ?kj igqpk nh Fkh lk{kh dgrh gS fd eS Lo;a xbZ Fkh ;g dguk xyr gS fd ukjk;.k eq>s j[k ys dgdj mlds ?kj xbZ Fkh lk{kh dgrh gS eq>s cnpyu dgk tk jgk Fkk blh dks lkfcr djkus xbZ Fkh dkSu eq>s cnpyu dg jgk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eS ukjk;.k dks cykRdkj ds dsl esa Qalk nsus dh /kedh nh Fkh ;g dguk xyr gS fd iqfyl okys eq>s mBkdj ukjk;.k ds ?kj ls yk, Fks lk{kh dgrh gS fd eS Lo;a ukjk;.k ds ?kj ls vkbZ FkhA tSlk uD’kk esa crk;k x;k gS oSlk esjs ?kj ds lkeus vke lMd gSA” 21. The accused/appellant, in question No.48 of his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, taken the same defence that he had complained against the prosecutrix before Parshad (ward member) Narayan (PW-6) and on the date of incident, he had gone with his wife to Mission Hospital, Champa for treatment. 22. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar V. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 77 : 2020 SCC Online SC 194 in para 5.4.3 and 5.5 which read 16 thus :- “5.4.3 In Krishan Kumar Malik V. State of Haryana, it is observed and held by this court that 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. 5.5. With the aforesaid decisions in mind, it is required to be considered, whether is it safe to convict the accused solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix? Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality ?” 23. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire full confidence of the Court. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis of the evidence and overall statement and the conduct of the prosecutrix (PW-7), what emerges is that when the accused/appellant complained about the illegal activity (prostitution) of the prosecutrix (PW-7) before PW-6, the prosecutrix (PW-7) and her maternal grand-mother (PW-11) started quarreling with the accused/appellant and when a 17 demand of money was raised to compromise the dispute and the same got failed, the FIR came to be lodged after delay of about 03 days. The independent witness (PW-6) has also supported the defence of accused/appellant. That apart, the statement of Dr. Anita Shrivastava (PW-2) and medical report (Ex.P-2) also not supports the prosecution case with regard to commission of rape. 24. As discussed above with regard to the truthfulness of the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW/7), when examined by the evidence of her maternal grand-mother (PW-11), independent witness Narayan (PW-6), medical evidence of PW/2 and medical report (Ex.P/2), this Court does not find the statement of the prosecutrix (PW/7) to be natural and truthful & the same is not sufficient to hold the accused/appellant guilty. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of course has to go to the appellant. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the accused/appellant under Sections 450, 376 IPC and sentenced imposed thereunder are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said charges by extending him benefit of doubt. 26. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of 18 BNSS. 27. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.11.25 15:10:20 +0530