1 2025:CGHC:58340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 974 of 2025 • Ashwani Kanwar S/o Samme Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Bhanthapara, Mohra, P.S. Urga, District Korba (C.G.) ...Appellant(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Urga, District Korba (C.G.) ..Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Aakash Ahuja, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shr i Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board 02.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional/Upper Sessions Judge FTSC (POCSO) Korba (C.G.) in Special Case (POCSO) No. 16/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.03 17:21:13 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 12,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the prosecutrix appeared before Police Station and submitted a written application stating that the victim was in relationship with the appellant. During the course of their conversation, the accused, on several occasions, established physical relations with the victim under the false promise of marriage. Both the victim and the accused remained in a relationship for about 5 years, during which the accused repeatedly established physical relations with her under the false assurance of marriage. When the victim asked the accused to solemnize the marriage, he refused to marry her. He is married with some other women. On that basis FIR has been registered under Section 376(2)(n), of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. Statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were recorded by the police. After completing the entire investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited documents in support of case of the prosecution. The appellant has neither examined any witness 3 in his defence nor exhibited any document. 4. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 02 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecutrix was a major lady who understands her own well-being. The entire prosecution case is based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, without any independent corroboration. The alleged relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant was admittedly consensual in nature and continued over a period of nearly 5 years. Such prolonged association clearly indicates that the relationship was voluntary, and not one obtained by deception or coercion. She was consenting party and no ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) of IPC available in the evidence brought out by the prosecution. Moreover, he further submit that the entire case reflects that the prosecutrix is major and her relationship is consensual. Further after 5 years, the prosecutrix has made complaint about the said incidence, which destroyed the credibility of her testimony. The evidence of the victim does not inspire the confidence and therefore 4 no offences under IPC is made out against the appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in AIROnline 2024 SC 764. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant and have submitted that considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant which is justified and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 9. On perusal of the records, it is alleged that the accused, on several occasions, established physical relations with the victim. The victim knew the fact that appellant has already married man but she continued in relationship. Both the victim and the accused remained in a relationship for about 5 years, during which the accused repeatedly established physical relations with her as per evidence of victim, the accused has given promise to marriage with her but after 5 years he denied to marry her. 10. Firstly, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC. In order to prove the offence, the victim has been examined as PW-1. 11. The victim (PW-1), has stated in her deposition that she is 5 close to the appellant as they were known to each other and she had been in a relationship with the accused for about 5 years, during which he repeatedly established physical relations with her under the promise of marriage. She stated in her main-examination that the accused was already married. After a month or two when she came to know about it and asked the accused/appellant as to why he had married her by deceiving her, the accused was marrying her out of compulsion. He assured her that he would marry her. She further stated in her cross-examination that she had never told anything about the accused and the accusing having physical relations with her to her family members or any other person. She had not suffered any injury during the first incident and that no immediate complaint was lodged. 12. PW-3, the Doctor who has medically examined the victim have not found any external injury on her body and no definite opinion could be given with regard to any forceful sexual intercourse. 13. On going through the evidence of the prosecutrix, that she had been in a relationship with the appellant for 5 years and the appellant used to established physical relationship on the pretext of marriage, but she has never raised any alarm, as stated in her complaint. She knew the fact that appellant was married person but she was continue in contact with him and she maintained the relationship. Therefore the said version shows that there is no such criminal intimidation. 14. On perusal of the evidence, it appears that in view of her 6 statement, she was a consenting party and the incident is 5 years prior to the date of complaint lodged by her and the Delay in lodging of the FIR has also not been explained by the prosecution. Moreover, while she alleged that the accused established physical relations with her against her will, she also admitted that she had been in a relationship with him for about 5 years. She did not report any of these incidents to the police or her family. The prosecutrix admitted in paragraph 13 of her cross-examination that she and accused liked each other and wanted to get married and the relationship was consensual. She suffered no physical injury at the time of the first alleged act. Despite claiming repeated acts over several years, she conceded that she never reported the matter to anyone until much later, giving no satisfactory explanation for the delay. 15. From the close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the victim neither was taken by force by the appellant, she herself accompany with the appellant on her own will and consent. Further the appellant has not committed any forceful sexual intercourse with her without her will or consent and she engaged in making physical relation with the appellant consensually. 16. The version of the victim commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt in the mind of the Court on the veracity of the victim's evidence, then it will not be safe to rely on the said version of the victim. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. 7 However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 17. Considering the entire evidence available on record, the evidence with regard to the conduct of the victim, her evidence, absence of any injury over her body as also the evidence that she was in love affair with the appellant for 5 years, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove that on the date of incident the victim has not been taken by force and she herself accompanied with him and made physical relation with him consensually, therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC is not made out against the appellant. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.04.2025 is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted from all the charges. The appellant is reported to be in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 19. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms 8 of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti