1 2025:CGHC:17562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 293 of 2016 Ram Naresh S/o Bhimsen Satnami Aged About 42 Years R/o Chouthapara, Village Baya, P.S. - Rajadevari, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S. H. O. Rajadevari, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 16.04.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2016, passed in ST No.65/2014 by which the learned Session Judge, Baloda-Bazar, Bhatapara, (CG), convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years & fine of Rs.500/-, 2 in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional RI. Under Section 376 (1) of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional RI. 2. The present appeal was filed in the year 2016 and the appellant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2016. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant in pre-lunch session when the matter was called out for hearing, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr. Shashi Kushwaha, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 07-08-2014, prosecutrix/victim was sleep alongwith her family at her home, at about 10:00 pm, appellant/accused (Ramnaresh Satnami) has opened the latch of door of the house, entered into the house and, thereafter, committed forceful sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. When, she tried to object/scream, he covered her mouth with the saree which she was wearing. Husband of prosecutrix woke up and he saw the appellant running away from the house. On the next day morning, prosecutrix informed about the incident to Manaram, Pardeshi and other people of the locality and, thereafter, lodged report in the concerned Police Station, based upon which, FIR was registered against the 3 accused for the offence U/s 376 & 450 of IPC (Exhibit P-7). 5. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 6. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 12 witnesses. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. Learned trail Court failed to appreciate that the persons who were informed just after the incident by the prosecutrix have turned hostile and not support the story of the prosecution. Prosecutrix in her evidence has stated that she recognized the appellant only from his beard as before committing the offence, accused had put-off the lights, therefore, she could not saw his face. The prosecutrix deposed that the 4 accused had broke the door, but none of the family members were awake. Trail Court ought to have appreciated that prosecutrix having sex with her husband after the alleged incident, which is very unnatural. Learned counsel further submits that there are many contradictions, omissions and improvement in the evidence of the prosecutrix, which was not considered properly by learned trial court. Further 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. 9. 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. 10. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 11. PW-6/prosecutrix in her evidence has stated that she knows the appellant/accused, he lives in the same village. On the date of alleged incident, she was sleeping in her house, at about 09: 00 to 10:00 pm appellant opened the latch of the door, entered into the house, put-off the light and, thereafter, committed forceful 5 sexual intercourse with her. When she tried to scream/object, appellant covered her mouth from her Saree and ran away after committing rape with her. After the incident, she told the incident to her husband. She further stated that since the appellant was from her village and having a beard, she came to know that it is appellant, who committed rape with her. She informed about the incident to the villagers ie Pardeshi & Pankajram on the next day morning. She also admitted that appellant was sleeping with her. 12. PW-7/husband of prosecutrix in his evidence has stated that on the date of alleged incident, he was sleeping in the house besides the prosecutrix. At about 10:00 pm, his wife woke up him and told that appellant has committed rape with her. 13. PW-9/Dr. Anita Verma (medical officer) in her deposition has stated that no injury has been found on the body of prosecutrix during examination. She opined that prosecutrix had sexual intercourse which was at-least three weeks old. She opined nothing with regard to recent sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix. 14. It is very important fact that PW-7/husband of the prosecutrix was also sleeping in the house besides the prosecutrix, but there is no alarm raised by the prosecutrix and also husband PW-7 did not resist at the time of sexual intercourse by the appellant with prosecutrix, it is unnatural conduct of the prosecutrix as well her husband, therefore, evidence of prosecutrix and her husband does not inspire confidence and there is substantial doubt. 6 15. It is well settled law that in the cases of sexual assault, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However, in this case looking to the contradiction and exaggeration in the evidence of the prosecutrix, her conduct during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto coupled with the medical evidence which also lends no support to the prosecution case and further the fact that PW-11/Pardeshi and PW-12/Babu Lal (villagers) have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the given set of facts and circumstances of the case, no offence is made out against the appellant. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 450, 376(1) of the IPC. 17. 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/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-