1 2025:CGHC:58379 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 478 of 2005 1 - Shankar Ram Yadav, S/o Siru Yadav, aged about 19 years, R/o Dumar Toli, P.S. Narayanpur, Distt. Jashpur. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S.H. Officer, P.S. Narayanpur, Distt. Jashpur. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondent / State : Mr. Pratik Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 02/12/2025 1. Heard. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as ‘Sessions Judge) in Sessions Case No.120/2004, whereby learned Sessions Court, after holding the RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.12.09 10:26:46 +0530 2 appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner :- Conviction u/S Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 450, IPC RI for 03 years Rs.300/- RI for 1 month 376, IPC RI for 07 years Rs.500/- RI for 1½ months Both the substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.09.2004 at about 11:00 am, when the victim / prosecutrix returned to her house after taking a bath, the appellant entered into her house and asked her what vegetable she had cooked. Thereafter, the appellant forcibly took her inside a room, threw her on the floor and raped her, threatening to kill her when she screamed. Later, at about 4:00 pm on the same day, the appellant again arrived at her house, due to which, the victim ran away from her house out of fear. When her husband returned home in the evening, she narrated about the entire incident to him and on the next day, written complaint (Ex.P-10) was made to the Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur, based on which, an FIR (Ex. P-11) was registered against the appellant for the offence under Sections 452 and 376 of the IPC on 15.09.2004. Medical examination of the victim was conducted by Dr. Smt. J. Minj (PW- 2), who, vide MLC report (Ex.P-2), opined that since no external or internal injury was found on her person and she was habitual of sexual intercourse, therefore, no definite opinion can be given about her rape, hence, she prepared two vaginal slides of victim and handed over the same to the concerned Constable for chemical examination. Medical examination of the appellant was also conducted by Dr. S. Toppo (PW-3), 3 who, vide MLC report (Ex.P-4), he reported positive. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC were recorded. Vaginal slides and semen stained petticoat of victim were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-17), underwear of the appellant was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P- 9), spot maps (Ex. P-15 & P-6) were prepared by the police and patwari respectively, semen slide and pubic hairs of the appellant were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-18). After completion of investigation, a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 452 & 376 of the IPC was filed against the appellant before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Jashpur, who conducted the trial. 4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 450 & 376 of the IPC against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution’s evidence claiming himself to be innocent and false implication, as there was property dispute between both the parties. The appellant / accused has examined one witness Mahabir Singh (DW-1) in his defence. 6. After considering the evidence brought by both the parties, learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 13.05.2005 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused would submit that both the parties belong to the same caste and were neighbours also. The conduct of victim shows that it was a consensual relationship, but on 4 the date of incident, when the relation made between victim and the appellant was revealed to a third person, the FIR was lodged by the victim under pressure. She would further submit that there was a property dispute between both the parties, and therefore, the family members of the victim lodged the FIR against the appellant. She next submitted that except victim, there are no other reliable witnesses, as Jhasbinandram Yadav (PW-7) and Keshav (PW-8), who have been examined, are her husband and brother-in-law (जेठ) respectively and they are hearsay witnesses. The medical evidence also does not support the case of prosecution and the FSL report has not been proved. Hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge is completely perverse and against the evidence available on record. Therefore, she prays that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges by setting aside the impugned judgment. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with record of the Sessions Court. 10. PW-6 is victim, PW-7 is her husband and PW-8 is her brother-in-law (जेठ). Except these three witnesses, there are no other independent witnesses pertaining to the facts of the case. Other witnesses are the doctor, police and the seizure witness. 11. Victim (PW-6) has stated in her deposition that the alleged incident occurred at about 12:00 noon, when she was alone in her house, where appellant dragged her into the room, disrobed himself and raped her forcibly. She has not stated in her examination-in-chief that during the commission of alleged act she resisted or applied force upon the appellant by pushing or scratching him etc. Though in para 19 of cross-examination 5 she has stated that she had screamed, but she admitted in para 20 that she did not even push the appellant with her leg. 12. Medical examination of victim was conducted by Dr. Smt. J. Minj (PW- 2), who, vide MLC report (Ex. P-4), opined that no visible injury was found on the person of victim and she also did not find any symptom indicative of forcible intercourse. It was further noted that the victim was an adult and a married lady. 13. PW-7 is husband of the victim and PW-8 is her brother-in-law (जेठ), to whom she narrated the incident, therfore, they are hearsay witnesses. The FSL report pertaining to the clothes and slides of the victim and appellant has not been proved by the prosecution. Thus, apart from the deposition of victim and hearsay witnesses, there is no other evidence to support the case of the prosecution. 14. Gurbaru (PW-1) and Jagmohan Ram (PW-5) are seizure witnesses pertaining to the clothes of the victim and appellant. They have turned hostile, as they have not supported the case of prosecution. 15. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it is found that except victim, there is no other evidence to support her statement regarding the commission of alleged crime by the appellant. On the other hand, her admission made in cross-examination also does not inspire confidence of the Court with regard to trustworthiness of her deposition pertaining to the alleged offence. PW-7, the husband of victim, has admitted that there was a property dispute between both the parties and that they also belong to rival parties. Victim herself admitted in para 21 of cross-examination that she had terminated her pregnancy one month prior to the present incident, because her husband suspected that she had conceived not from him but from the appellant. 6 16. In the case of Raju Vs. State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC 133], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 11 as under :- “11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. 17. In the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 130], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 18. Further, in the case of Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2012) 8 SCC 21], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider who can be said to be a “sterling witness”. In para 22, it is observed and held as under: “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a 7 position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to 8 enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 19. Keeping 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? 20. Reverting to the facts of instant case, on 14.09.2004 at about 11:00 am, when the victim / prosecutrix came to her house after taking a bath, the appellant arrived there and asked her what vegetable she has cooked. Thereafter, the appellant took her forcefully in the room, threw her on the floor and raped her by threatening to kill her when she screamed. In the evening at about 4:00 pm, the appellant again arrived at her house, that time the victim run away from her house under the scare. After the said incident, the victim informed her husband. Aforesaid fact has also been supported by her husband (PW-7) and her brother-in-law (PW-8). 21. If any forceful physical relation would have been made with a victim by a person, then the victim would have made some effort to protect herself by applying force upon the person and in such situation, she would have sustained at least some visible injury, but neither the victim (PW-6) has deposed in her deposition that she had made any effort to protect herself nor Dr. Smt. J. Minj (PW-2), who examined the victim and prepared MLC report Ex.P-4, has opined that any visual injury was found on the person of victim and she also did not find any symptom with regard to forceful intercourse committed with the victim, rather in paragraph 20 of the cross- examination, she has admitted that she did not resist the appellant at the 9 time of alleged offence. She has also admitted in para 21 of cross- examination that she had terminated her pregnancy one month prior to the present incident, as her husband doubted her that she has conceived from appellant, not from him. 22. From above discussion, it cannot be ruled out that it was a consensual relation between victim and appellant but since alleged act was revealed to some other person, therefore, present FIR was lodged. Further, there was prior enmity between both the families on various counts, as such, on this count also, truthfulness of said charge is not found to be reliable. But, learned sessions judge, without considering aforesaid facts, has convicted and sentenced the appellant, which is perverse to the evidence available on record. Hence, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 23. In view of the above discussion, the criminal appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the impugned judgment under Sections 450 and 376 of the IPC are set aside/quashed and he is acquitted of the said charges. 24. The appellant is said to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 25. Record of the concerned Court below along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar