1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 182 of 2018 Judgment Reserved on 25.04.2025 Judgment Delivered on 05.05.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Out Post Hardi Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Satya Kumar Maravi, S/o Chand Ram Marawi, aged about 32 Years, 2. Bhaiyaram, S/o Samaru Ram Kashyap, aged about 34 Years, Both are R/o Village Bhalpehari, Out Post Hardi Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Additional Judge, Katghora to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.112/2013, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons / respondents herein of the charge under Sections 456, 376, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') on the basis of benefit of doubt. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.05.06 11:22:34 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.09.2013, victim (PW-1), aged about 30 years, lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) stating therein that in the month of June-July, 2013 (Aashadh month), accused persons/respondents herein, in furtherance of their common intention, entered her house, gagged her mouth and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one and also threatened her to kill her child if she discloses the incident to anyone and out of said fear, she did not inform about the incident to anyone. Thereafter, on 09.09.2013 at about 11:00 pm, while she was sleeping with her family members, at that time, again accused persons came to her house and tried to gag her mouth, upon which, she woke up and started screaming and called her husband and seeing this, accused persons ran way from there. Thereafter, her husband chased the accused persons, but could not capture them. On the basis of written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) has been registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 376, 456, 506 read with 34 of IPC. 3. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-27 and after obtaining consent letter vide Ex.P-3, victim was sent for medical examination whereupon PW-7 Dr. S.B. examined her and opined that victim is habitual to sexual intercourse, but could not give any definite opinion about recent sexual intercourse and also did not notice any sign of injury in her private part and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-9. Accused persons/respondents were taken into custody vide Exs.P-18 & P-19. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court under the 3 aforesaid Sections. Accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 27 documents connecting the respondents/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, they have examined one witness i.e. DW-1 statement of Shri Madhav Rathore and exhibited one document i.e. D-1. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons / respondents herein of said charges leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of the said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that from the statement of PW-1/victim, it is clear that it is the accused persons who forcibly entered her house and committed sexual intercourse with her one by one and also threatened her to kill her child, but the trial Court did not consider her statement and acquitted the respondents, which is per se illegal and contrary to law. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned judgment and submit that the statement of victim (PW-1) is not reliable as there are material inconsistencies in her statement and her statement does not corroborate with other prosecution witnesses, contents of FIR (Ex.P-2) and written report (Ex.P-1). He would further submit that MLC report (Ex.P-9) of the victim shows that there is no 4 injury mark either external or internal over the person of the victim. He would also submit that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that no sufficient evidence is available on record to connect the accused persons / respondents with the crime in question. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant/State be dismissed. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Dola Alias Dolagobinda Pradhan and another vs State of Odisha reported in (2018) 18 SCC 695. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. Case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statement of PW-1/victim who has stated in her deposition that she knows the accused persons/respondents and during rainy season in 2013, at about 11-12:00 pm, accused persons/respondents entered her house, gagged her mouth and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When she tried to shout, accused persons threatened her to kill her child if she discloses the incident to anyone, but on the contrary, in written report (Ex.P-1) & 5 FIR (Ex.P-2) lodged by her, it is mentioned that after breaking the wooden door which was situated in the back side of Badi, accused persons entered the house. She has further stated that after three months of the said incident, again accused persons came to her house, at that time, her husband was present who saw and chased them, but they fled away from the house. She has also stated that since there was darkness in the house, therefore, through street lights, they recognized the accused persons and thereafter lodged report against the accused persons in police station. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and in cross-examination, she admitted that as there was no previous dispute between her and accused persons, therefore, she did not lodge any report against them. She further admitted that due to fear, she did not lodge any report against the accused persons in police station about the first incident. She also admitted that for the last 10 years after marriage, she has been living in her matrimonial home at Bhalpari and during this period, she did not lodge any report in police station against the accused persons in any manner. 11. This apart, PW-2 husband of the victim has stated that at the time of incident, he was present in the house along with his wife/victim and children and he saw the accused persons in varanda. Thereafter, he asked victim as to why accused persons came to the house, upon which, she did not state anything and when this witness beat her, then she disclosed about the incident and after getting such information from his wife/victim about the incident, he informed his brother Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and his nephew Raju Kashyap. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination and in cross-examination, he admitted that his wife/victim did not inform him in relation to threat given by accused 6 persons after committing alleged sexual intercourse. He also admitted that during Ashadh month in 2013, respondent No.2- Bhaiyaram came to his house at 12:00 pm, then he chased him upto his house with lathi and by the time, victim was subjected to sexual assault. Besides, PW-8 Girish Chand Kashyap has stated that Dinesh Kumar did not inform him anything about the incident and he is not aware as to whether victim lodged any report against the accused persons. 12. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-1 victim and her statement does not corroborate with the statements of other witnesses, particularly with the evidence of PW-2 husband. Moreover, her statement also does not find corroboration with contents of written report (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-2) with respect to alleged offence. Further, victim (PW-1) herself admitted in her cross-examination that for the last 10 years after marriage, she has been living in her matrimonial home and during this period, she did not lodge any report in police station against the accused persons in any manner. The above evidence would also show that when the husband of the victim (PW-2) beat her and forcibly asked her, then she disclosed about the incident and before that victim did not tell him anything about the incident. Moreover, victim (PW-1) has stated that at the time of incident, her children were also present in the house, but they have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. This apart, the incident occurred in the month of June-July, 2013 (Aashadh month), whereas the FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged on 11.09.2013 and for this delay, no proper explanation has been offered by the victim. Thus, the credibility of the version of the victim appears to be doubtful and untrustworthy. Furthermore, Dr. S.B. (PW-7) who 7 examined the victim did not find any internal or external injury over the person of the victim nor give definite opinion about recent sexual intercourse. Although the law is well settled that in the case of rape, the conviction can be maintained even on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim if her evidence inspires confidence, but in the present case, the statement of the victim does not inspire confidence and suffers from material inconsistencies with respect to complicity of accused persons in the crime in question. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and clinching evidence and as such, acquitted them of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons / respondents herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant/State is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh