1 2025:CGHC:55038-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1747 of 2019 Kamal Nag S/o Laikhan Aged About 27 Years R/o Thothapara, Indira Colony, Kukanaar, Police Station - Kukanaar, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kukanaar, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pankaj Singh, P.L. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (12.11.2025) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J 1. Invoking criminal jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the appellants herein have preferred these criminal appeals calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.11.14 11:59:20 +0530 2 Additional Session Judge (FTC), Dantewada (C.G.), in ST No.136/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 450 of IPC Imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, RI for 1 month U/s 376 of IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, RI for 1 month 506 part-II of IPC Imprisonment of 3 years 354 of IPC Imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, RI for 1 month 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 40 year old married prosecutrix (PW-1) is a resident of Kukanar Bhattipara under Police Station Kukanar, whose husband is (PW-4). Out of their two adult children, the elder child lives separately while the younger child (PW-7) lives with them. The prosecutrix (PW-1) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-1) in Police Station Kukanar on 23/02/2017 to the effect that about two months before the report, in December 2016, when her husband had gone to Andhra Pradesh for treatment of illness and her son was not at home, then at about 9.00 pm, the accused Kamal Nag 3 suddenly came to her house, took out a knife and placed it on her neck and forcibly raped her, then showing the knife, threatened to kill her and said that if she told anyone, he would kill her. Out of this fear, the prosecutrix did not tell the incident to anyone. On 15/02/2017, the accused again came to her house at night. When the prosecutrix was alone at home, he again tried to rape her. On hearing the shouts of the prosecutrix, (PW-5), (PW-6) and (PW-8) who were passing by on the road came upon hearing the sound. They saw the accused running away from the prosecutrix's house and when they went and asked the prosecutrix, she told that the accused was trying to rape her. Thereafter, on the written complaint of the prosecutrix, a First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit P-2) was registered in Police Station-Kukanar on 23/02/2017 and the prosecutrix was medically examined. Statements of witnesses were recorded. A scene map was prepared. After completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the statements of the witnesses against him and stated that the complainant side had a fight with his 4 brother and that he had gone to the police station to file a report in his brother's favor, due to which he was falsely implicated, even though he was innocent. He did not present any evidence in his defense. After hearing both sides, the trial Court passed a judgment of conviction, which is challenged in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim (PW-1) is a 40-year-old married woman. The report was filed with a delay of approximately two months, for which no satisfactory reason was given by the prosecution. The witness statements also revealed that the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident of December 2016 to her husband or son, nor did she disclose it to anyone in the village. The second alleged incident occurred on 15/02/2017, yet the report was not filed immediately; instead, a written complaint was submitted on 23/02/2017. There is no clear evidence of coercion against the prosecutrix by the accused. The prosecutrix (PW-1) made false statements. Her statement is beyond doubt unreliable. The trial Court failed to properly discussed the evidence and reached an erroneous conclusion that cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed, the impugned judgment may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted. 5 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the conclusion given by the trial Court regarding conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on sufficient and reliable evidence, which does not require any interference. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the Appellant is not acceptable, hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. In a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443, in which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellant, the concept expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the assessment of the credibility of statement of the sole prosecutrix is as follows in paragraphs No.-5.5 & 6:- “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?” “6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version 6 of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall accused came inside and thereafter the accused committed rape. She has stated that she identified the accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. Even nothing is on record that there was a broken compound wall. She has further stated that in the morning at 10 O’clock she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However, according to the investigating officer a written complaint was given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the prosecutrix has referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW1 and others. However, Shanti Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5-prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. There is a delay in the FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect to land. The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the solitary version of the prosecutrix-PW5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.” 8. In this case, the prosecutrix (PW-1) is the main witness who has been unable to tell even date of the first incident. 7 The second incident is said to have taken place on 15/02/2017, on which date, on hearing the prosecutrix's screams at night, (PW-5), (PW-6) and (PW-8) have stated that they saw the accused running away from the prosecutrix's house and when they went and asked the prosecutrix, she told that the accused was trying to rape her, but it is noteworthy that at the time of both the incidents, neither her husband nor her son was with the prosecutrix. 9. The husband (PW-4) and son (PW-7) also stated in cross- examination that the prosecutrix (PW-1) did not inform them regarding the first incident. The witnesses (PW-5), (PW-6), and (PW-8) of the second incident also stated that the prosecutrix (PW-1) did not inform them regarding the first incident prior to the second incident. The prosecutrix herself admitted that she had not disclosed any information to anyone regarding the first incident prior to the alleged second incident. The prosecutrix also admitted that on the alleged second incident, dated 15/02/2017, the accused did not rape her but fled. Under these circumstances, when the prosecutrix (PW-1) herself admitted that she did not inform any family member or neighbor about the first incident before the alleged second incident, she cannot be considered as a reliable witness. No 8 convincing explanation has been provided for the delay of two months in reporting the matter. In such circumstances, the prosecutrix (PW-1) statement that the accused entered her home without her consent and forcibly becomes questionable. The prosecutrix’s statement being entirely questionable, the prosecution's case against the accused/appellant is found to be unsubstantiated. Therefore, the accused's conviction and sentence cannot be upheld. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted. 11. The Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge -Shubham