1 2025:CGHC:60858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 295 of 2022 Judgment Reserved on 03.12.2025 Judgment Pronounced on 15.12.2025 Narayan Das Manikpuri S/o Amardas Manikpuri, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Parsadih, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana In-Charge, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For appellant : Mr. Hari Agrawal & Mr. Prashant Dansena, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi CAV JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth, Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Special Criminal Case 2 (Atrocities) No. 70/2019, whereby the learned Special Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of Indian Penal Code RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional RI for six months Under Section 376 (2) (t) of Indian Penal Code RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional RI for six months. Both the sentence were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 13- 14/10/2019, complainant/victim (PW-6), aged about 21 years, was sleeping in her house alongwith her mother-in-law and father-in-law. She was carrying pregnancy of 5 months also. At about 1.30 AM, appellant entered in the room unauthorizedly where victim was sleeping, gagged her mouth and dragged her at courtyard (vkWaxu), where he raped her. Appellant also tore her nightie. On being screamed by her, her father-in-law & mother-in-law woke up and saw appellant fleeing away from the spot. Written complaint (Ex.P-3) was made by the victim/complainant in Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh. Based on which, FIR (Ex.P-4) under Section 456 & 376 IPC was registered against the appellant. During course of investigation, medical examination of victim (PW-6) was conducted by Dr. J. Tripathi (PW-4), in which, vide MLC report (Ex.P-1), she found number of scratch marks in both the arms of victim 3 just above wrist, but no injury was found on her private part, therefore, she could not opine whether she had been raped or not. Hence, she collected two vaginal slides, underwear and pubic hairs of victim and handed over the same to concerned Constable for chemical examination. Spot map was prepared by the Police as well as Patwari. Statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Torn nightie was seized from victim (PW-6) vide seizure memo (Ex.P-11). Pieces of broken bangles were seized from the scene of occurrence vide seizure memo (Ex.P-14). Medical examination of appellant was also got conducted, in which, Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-8) opined “positive” vide MLC report (Ex.P-15). Vaginal slide, underwear and pubic hairs of victim were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-18). Underwear of appellant /accused was also seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-19). Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the police. Seized articles i.e. vaginal slides and underwear of victim & appellant were sent to FSL for chemical examination, but FSL report has not been filed before the trial Court. The appellant was arrested vide Arrest Memo (Ex.P-20). 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 456 & 376 of the IPC and Section 3(1) c (1) & (3) (2) 5 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, “Atrocities Act”) was filed before Special Court (Atrocity). 4. Learned Special Court framed charge under Section 450 and 376(2) Tk of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, which were read and explained to the appellant, who abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 4 5. So as to hold appellant/accused guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. Statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence. 6. The Special Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide its impugned judgment dated 11.01.2022, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, but convicted him for the offence under Sections 450 & 376 (2) (t) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Against which, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the same. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that it has not been proved by the prosecution as to by which way the appellant entered in the house of the victim (PW-6). The victim has only stated that appellant dragged her from room where she was sleeping alongwith her mother-in-law and by crossing veranda where her father-in-law was sleeping, thereafter, the appellant allegedly took her to the courtyard where she raised an alarm for the first time, though she has stated that the appellant had gagged her mouth, but on the other hand, she has also stated that the appellant held her both the hands while taking her to the courtyard, therefore, she could have raised alarm, which she did not do. He further submits that in medical report, except, scratch marks, no injury has been reported to be found and doctor has admitted the suggestion in cross-examination that alleged scratch injuries sustained on the wrists of the victim could be self-inflicted, therefore, offence 5 of rape with the victim could not have been held proved against the appellant. He further submits that father-in-law of victim has admitted in his cross- examination that he had locked the main door of the house from inside and key of the same was kept by the victim herself, therefore, if there would have any physical relation between victim and the appellant, then it was consensual. But it seems that the alleged act was seen by in-laws of the victim, hence, under pressure, victim lodged FIR, but learned Special Court, without considering aforesaid facts, has mechanically convicted the appellant only accepting the evidence of victim, which suffers from grave improbabilities, Hence, he prayed that appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the alleged charges by setting aside the impugned judgment. 8. Per contra, learned counsel of the State/respondent would support the impugned judgment passed by learned Special Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. Victim (PW-6) has stated in her deposition that in the intervening night of 13-14/10/2019, she and her mother-in-law (PW-7) were sleeping in the room, her father-in-law (PW-3) was sleeping in veranda of that room. At about 1.30 AM, appellant came in their room, gagged her mouth and took her to courtyard through veranda where her father-in-law was sleeping and at courtyard, appellant sexually exploited her. She has further deposed that in aforesaid incident, her bangles were broken, due to which, she had sustained injuries on wrists of both the hands. She has further stated that on being screamed by her, her mother-in-law and father-in-law woke up and came at 6 the scene of occurrence, then the appellant fled away through ckM+h (garden). Her father-in-law & mother-in-law had seen the appellant running away. Thereafter, she informed her father-in-law, mother-in-law, grandfather and grandmother about the incident. 11. PW-1 is grandmother of victim, PW-2 is her grandfather, PW-3 is her father-in-law and PW-7 is her mother-in-law. They have also supported deposition of victim in their statements. 12. As per cross-examination of father-in-law of victim (PW-3) and her mother-in-law (PW-7), there are two gates in their house, main gate and second gate was towards ckM+h (garden). He has stated in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination that in the intervening night of 13-14/10/2019, he had locked the door and key to the lock was with the daughter-in-law (victim). Mother-in-law (PW-7) has admitted in her cross-examination that door of ckM+h (garden) was closed from inside. It has not been proved by the prosecution as to from which other way, appellant had entered into the house of victim. In absence of such evidence, it seems that appellant had entered in the house either from front gate or from gate of ckM+h (garden), which were closed from inside, therefore, appellant could not have entered without indulgence / assistance of a person present inside the house. Father-in-law (PW-3) and Mother-in-law (PW-7) have no reason to allow the appellant in their house in the night, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that, the appellant was got entered into the house with the assistance of victim (PW-6) herself. 13. Appellant allegedly gagged the mouth of victim and dragged her from room where her mother-in-law was sleeping through veranda, where her father-in-law was sleeping, thereafter, she was taken to courtyard where alleged act was committed by the appellant. Victim has stated in her 7 deposition that since appellant/accused had gagged her mouth, therefore, she could not make a shout and the sound that was coming out was also drowned out of the sound of cooler. But neither in FIR nor in her police statement (Ex.D-1) or statement (Ex.D-10) recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she had stated that cooler was running. This fact also does not get support from deposition of her mother-in-law and father-in-law. If she would have dragged by appellant applying such a force by gagging her mouth, then also she can hit cot, on which her mother-in-law and father-in-law were sleeping or she can hit any other articles of the room/ veranda to wake up them for her help, but she did not do anything like that, rather she screamed from courtyard where alleged act was committed by the appellant. 14. As per deposition of victim (PW-6), the appellant had torn her nightie, which was seized from her vide seizure memo (Ex.P-11) by ASI – Kusum Kaiwart (PW-9). Sustaining alleged injuries on the wrists of both the hands by victim because of broke of bangles is also got support from deposition of Dr. J. Tripathi (PW-4), who medically examined the victim, as he reported vide MLC report (Ex.P-1) that more than 10 number of scratch injuries were found in writs of both her hands, apart from that injury, he did not find any other external or internal injures or in private part of the victim. Therefore, she could not say whether the victim was raped or not. Thus, from the perusal of aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that except said scratch injuries, neither any external injuries nor any internal injuries or on private part of the victim were found on the person of victim. In her medical examination regarding the aforesaid scratch marks, Dr. J. Tripathi (PW-4) has opined that those scratch injuries can be self inflicted. Thus from medical evidence, victim does not get any material support. 8 15. Further, mother-in-law (PW-7) of victim has stated in her deposition that neither she had seen torn nightie of the victim nor the victim had sustained injuries, which she would have seen if that had happened. 16. On being screamed raised by victim (PW-6), her father-in-law (PW-3) and mother-in-law (PW-7) woke up. Father-in-law (PW-3) has stated in his deposition that he had seen the alleged incident of rape and when he went there, then appellant pushed him, hence, he fell, thereafter, appellant run away towards ckM+h (garden), but this fact was not stated by him in his police statement (Ex.D-1). He has admitted in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination that his wife (PW-7) did not wake-up at the time of incident, whereas, his wife (PW-7) has stated in her deposition that upon hearing scream of victim, she woke up and went towards courtyard, then she had seen running the appellant towards ckM+h (garden), thereafter, she creamed, then her husband (PW-3) woke-up and came on the scene of occurrence. Thus, from their deposition, it became doubtful that who woke up first and what they had seen. But, it seems from evidence available on record that one of them had woke up and seen the victim and appellant, therefore, victim (PW-6) created new story and lodged FIR under pressure. 17. Grandmother (PW-1) & Grandfather (PW-2) of victim are hearsay witness, to whom the victim informed about the incident in the night itself. Than Singh Jaisal (PW-5) is a patwari, who prepared spot map. Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-8), who conducted the medical examination of the appellant/accused on 15.10.2019, has given a "positive" report stating that he is capable to perform sexual intercourse vide MLC report (Ex.P-15). Furthermore, there is nothing significant in their statements that supports the case of prosecution. 9 18. At the time of incident, victim was carrying pregnancy of 5 months, hence, if she would have been dragged from room through veranda to courtyard, then the victim, who was fully grown up lady, would have made stiffest possible resistance to protect herself, however, no such conduct was found to have been done by the victim. 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Misra and others vs. State of Orissa 1 while considering similarly situated issue of instant case has observed in paragraph 8 as under :- “8. In the first place, the admitted position is that the prosecutrix is a fully grown up lady and habituated to sexual intercourse and was pregnant. She was experienced inasmuch as she had acted as a midwife. It is true that the learned Sessions Judge was impressed with the demeanour of this witness, but that by itself is not sufficient to prove the case if the allegation of the prosecution suffers from inherent improbabilities. The opinions of medical experts show that it is very difficult for any person to rape single-handed a grown up and an experienced woman without meeting stiffest possible resistance from her. In the instant case, according to the evidence given by P.W. 1, A-1 entered the room and committed sexual intercourse with very great force and violence against her consent. Indeed if this was so, we should have expected the stiffest possible resistance from her resulting in injury over the penis or scrotum of the accused or abrasions over other parts of the body caused by the nails of the prosecutrix. The accused were examined by P.W. 9 who 1 (1977) 3 SCC 41 10 did not find any injury over the penis or scrotum and he does not say that he found any injury on any other part of the body. This is rather an important circumstance which negatives the allegation of rape. The prosecutrix knew full well that the appellants had entered the room with evilintention from the fact that her husband was dragged away to the verandah and the door was bolted by A-1. In 'these circumstances we fail to see why the prosecutrix should have silently abided to have the intercourse with the appellant without putting up any resistance, except shouting, particularly when the prosecutrix was a fully grown up lady and experienced not only in sexual intercourse but also in the art of midwifery. She knew that she was pregnant and if any violence was caused to her it may lead to abortion. This circumstance would naturally impel her to put up the stiffest possible resistance against A-1 who was single-handed and was not armed with any weapon which may have silenced the prosecutrix. The theory propounded by the learned Sessions Judge was that as the appellants were N. C. C. students and sturdy persons the prosecutrix may have found it futile to put up any resistance and may have decided to submit to the onslaught on her. Such a course of conduct is wholly improbable, particularly in the case of grown up and an experienced lady like P.W. 1. Taylor, in the Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Vol. II, dealing with the cases of rape on a grown up woman observes as follows: Unless under the influence of drink or drugs or asleep or ill, a fully grown girl or adult woman should be able to resist a sex assault. We should expect to find evidence of a struggle 11 to avoid sexual contact or penetration, and may well feel uncertainty about the real nature of an alleged assault in its absence.... A false accusation of rape may some times be exposed by marks of violence being wholly inadequate or absent. Bruises upon the arms or the neck may be considered to constitute some evidence of a struggle; and impressions of finger nails are also significant. Bruises or scratches about the inner side of the thighs and knees may be inflicted during., attempts to abduct the legs forcibly, and care must also be taken to examine the back, for the victim may have been pinned against the wall or floor. It is important to record these in detail, and to say, if possible, how fresh they are. The ageing of bruises is, as was indicated in Volume I, a matter of some uncertainty in the absence of microscopy. Strong corroborative evidence of a struggle might be obtained from an examination of the accused for similar marks of bruises or scratches about the arms or face, and possibly even about his penis, though this is less likely. Though injury is most unlikely to the penis, a man may have had his face scratched or have been bitten during a sex assault. The clothing may bear some contact traces of the woman-hairs, vaginal secretion or blood, and, though of less significance, seminal stains. The medical evidence, therefore, clearly discloses that the prosecutrix does not appear to have put up any resistance to the alleged onslaught committed on her by the appellants. 12 From this the only irresistible inference can be that the prosecutrix was a consenting party which would be reinforced by other circumstances to which we shall refer hereafter.” 20. In this case the victim has not stated in her deposition, that, she inflicted any injuries on the appellant’s face, thigh or any other part of his body by biting, scratching or any other means in her defence at the time of the alleged incident. Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-8), who medically examined the appellant on next day of the incident i.e. on 15.10.2019 has also not stated in his deposition that any such injury was found on any part of the body of the appellant. This fact also negatives the allegation of rape of the victim by the appellant. 21. In view of foregoing discussion, deposition of victim (PW-6) is not found to be worthy of credence and reliable to held guilty appellant for the alleged offences, rather it appears, that appellant entered into the house of the victim with the help of the victim and the alleged relationship was consensual, but since they were seen by the in-laws of the victim, a report was lodged against the appellant, but learned Upper Sessions Judge, without properly appreciation and marshaling the evidence vide impugned judgment convicted & sentenced the appellant for the alleged charges, which is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not found to be sustainable, deserves to be set aside. 22. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 450 & 376 (2) (t) of the IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. 13 23 The appellant is on bail. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 24. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.12.16 10:41:58 +0530