1 2025:CGHC:52685 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1087 of 2024 1 - Narendra Rajwade S/o Uday Rajwade Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Chorkakachhar, Police Station Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O昀케cer, Police Station Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been 昀椀led under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur) District Surguja, in Session Trial No. No. 90/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 450 of IPC RI for 7 years and 昀椀ne of Rs. 3000/- and, in default of payment of 昀椀ne, additional R.I. for 60 days 376 of IPC RI for 10 years and 昀椀ne of Rs. 3000/- and, in default of payment Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.10.30 18:45:49 +0530 2 of 昀椀ne, additional R.I. for 60 days 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.03.2022, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was sleeping in her house and her husband was out of the house, at that time, at about 12:00 night, the appellant knocked the door of house of prosecutrix, upon which, the prosecutrix opened the door and the appellant entered into her house and committed sexual intercourse with her. On 22.03.2022, the prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station Ambikapur and the concerned police station registered the FIR for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 450 and 376 of the IPC against the appellant in crime No. 244/2022. After completion of investigation and as per the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix and after M.L.C. the appellant has been arrested on 28.03.2022. The charge-sheet was 昀椀led before the competent Court against the appellant. 3. The learned Additional Session Judge (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 16.05.2024, convicted the appellant for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 450 and 376 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court, is perverse, contrary to law, and based on a misappreciation of evidence on record. The learned Trial Court failed to consider vital contradictions and omissions in the prosecution case and has arrived at 昀椀ndings not supported by the evidence. It is submitted that the prosecutrix (PW-1) is a married woman having two children, and her husband was admittedly 3 not present in the house since 17.03.2022. The conduct of the prosecutrix on the night of the alleged incident particularly the fact that she remained awake till midnight and opened the door voluntarily which clearly indicates that the alleged act was consensual. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that both the son and daughter of the prosecutrix were sleeping in the same house, yet no alarm or protest was raised by her at any stage during the alleged occurrence, which completely belies the allegation of forcible intercourse. The absence of any internal or external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix, as revealed by the medical examination report, further demolishes the prosecution version. It is further contended that there was a pre-existing land dispute between the appellant and the husband of the prosecutrix, and the appellant had earlier been threatened with false implication in a criminal case. This fact, coupled with the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story and suggests that the appellant has been falsely implicated out of enmity. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant fruther submits that the medical evidence and the ocular testimony are inconsistent and fail to corroborate each other. No independent witness has supported the prosecution version, and there is no clinching or reliable material on record to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, humbly submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Sections 450 and 376 IPC is wholly unsustainable in law and fact. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged o昀昀ences. The learned Trial Court has misread and misconstrued the evidence, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be 4 pleased to set aside the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2024, and acquit the appellant of all the charges levelled against him. 7. Learned State Counsel respectfully submits that the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court is just, proper and based on due appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellant under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is consistent, natural, and trustworthy. Her evidence alone is su昀케cient to base conviction, and it 昀椀nds corroboration from the surrounding circumstances and investigation records. The defence plea of consent is an afterthought, unsupported by any material on record. The absence of injuries does not negate the occurrence, as injuries are not a mandatory requirement to prove rape when the testimony of the prosecutrix is credible. The learned Trial Court has given well-reasoned 昀椀ndings and there is no perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant and dismiss the appeal as being devoid of merit. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The victim/prosecutrix deposed in her examination-in-chief that the prosecutrix stated that on 20.03.2022, while her husband was away at their native village Napra, Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur (C.G.), she was sleeping at home with her child after dinner. Around midnight, she heard someone knocking at the door and, assuming that her husband had returned, opened it. At that moment, the 5 accused Narendra Rajwade entered the house by pushing her, gagged her mouth, threw her on the ground, and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix deposed in her cross examination that The prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that on 20.03.2022, while her husband was away in their native village Anpara for Holi celebrations, she was at home with her two children. Around midnight, someone knocked at her door. Believing it to be her husband, she opened the door, whereupon the accused Narendra Rajwade entered, gagged her mouth, threw her on the 昀氀oor, and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that she tried to resist the accused, during which her bangles broke and her clothes were torn, but she could not free herself. She raised an alarm, yet no one heard her as the nearest house was about 150–200 meters away. The prosecutrix denied suggestions of any prior enmity, land dispute, or consent. Her husband returned the next day around 12–1 p.m., and she narrated the incident to him. The FIR was lodged on 22.03.2022, and the delay occurred because the police had initially called the accused for inquiry but registered the report the next day when he did not appear. She categorically asserted that the accused committed rape upon her against her will and consent, and denied the defence suggestion of false implication. 10.Dr. Revati Pekra (PW-8) has deposed in her deposition that the prosecutrix was examined on 22.03.2022 and was found physically and mentally 昀椀t, with no external or internal injuries on her body or private parts The doctor opined that no de昀椀nite opinion could be given regarding recent forcible sexual intercourse. 11.On careful scrutiny of the evidence, it is apparent that the statement of the prosecutrix does not 昀椀nd support from the medical evidence on record. While the prosecutrix alleged that she was forcibly subjected to sexual 6 intercourse and that her bangles broke and her clothes were torn during the struggle, the medical o昀케cer (PW-8) categorically stated that no external or internal injuries were found on the body or private parts of the prosecutrix. The medical report further records that the prosecutrix was physically and mentally 昀椀t and that no de昀椀nite opinion could be given regarding recent forcible intercourse. These 昀椀ndings clearly contradict the prosecutrix’s version of violent resistance and struggle. The absence of injuries or any medical indication of force creates a serious doubt regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident in the manner stated by the prosecutrix. 12.Upon careful appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court 昀椀nds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix su昀昀ers from material inconsistencies and is not corroborated by medical or independent evidence. The medical report shows no external or internal injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, and the doctor has not given any de昀椀nite opinion regarding recent forcible intercourse. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of two days, which further weakens the prosecution version. The possibility of false implication due to prior land dispute between the parties cannot be ruled out. Considering the absence of corroborative evidence and the bene昀椀t of doubt arising from the overall circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, o昀昀ence under Section 450 and 376 of the IPC would not be made out against the appellant. 13.The appeal is allowed accordingly. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2024 passed in S.T. No. 90/2022 is 7 hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 14. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti