1 2025:CGHC:57040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 534 of 2023 Ajay Kumar Kaiwart @ Bala S/o Deraharam Kaiwart Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Darra, Police Statice- Kasdol, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 24.11.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025 which is an application for urgent hearing. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No.02/2025 is allowed. 3. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2023, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhathapara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 17/2020, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code (For Short, IPC) Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 Years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 06 months. U/s 323 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 Year. U/s 506 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 Years. 4. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged on the ground that without there being any clinching evidence; learned First Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.12.2019 at about 06:00 p.m., the victim had gone to the house of her Ginya Papa (Mitan-Father) Jagdish Chauhan, situated a short distance from her residence. During this time, when she went behind the house towards the “Kola” side to urinate, the accused Ajay @ Bala Kaivartya, noticing the isolated place, allegedly gagged her mouth, dragged her near an imli (tamarind) tree, and when she resisted, threatened to kill her, assaulted her, and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her, as a result of which she became unconscious. She regained consciousness in the hospital and narrated the incident to her family members. The Assistant Sub-Inspector, G.R. 3 Kurre of Police Station Kasdol recorded her Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P- 01) at the hospital. The victim was sent for medical examination after obtaining her consent and the consent of her mother (Ex. P- 08). Based on her statement, the First Information Report (Ex. P-19) was registered, and investigation commenced. During her medical examination, the slides prepared from her vaginal swab were seized from Woman Constable Chandrakala Bharti (Ex. P-15). The investigating ofÏcer prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence (Ex. P-09). 6. The clothes worn by the victim at the time of the incident, brown- coloured panty and a blue lower, were seized in presence of witnesses (Ex. P-04). Her statement under Section 164 CrPC was got recorded before the Judicial Magistrate (Ex. P-05, P-05A). A request letter (Ex. P-06) was sent to the competent authority for obtaining the Patwari map of the spot, which was thereafter prepared by Patwari R.K. Mishra (Ex. P-07). Upon finding sufÏcient evidence against the accused, he was arrested (Ex. P-20). From him, one brown-coloured underwear was seized (Ex. P-11), and one black rexine belt, one broken bamboo stick, and one piece of stone alleged to have been used in the incident were also seized (Ex. P-12). 7. The accused was medically examined (Ex. P-13), and his underwear was forwarded for forensic testing (Ex. P-14A). All seized articles, lower of the victim (Ex. A), her panty (Ex.B), the vaginal slide (Ex.C), and the underwear of the accused (Ex.D), were 4 sent to the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, through the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar. After chemical analysis, the FSL Report (Ex. P-21) was received. 8. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 07.02.2020 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol. By order dated 26.02.2020, the JMFC committed the case to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, where it was registered on 07.03.2020. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the concerned Sessions Court. 9. The then Presiding OfÏcer, having found a prima facie case against the accused for offences under Sections 376, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, framed charges accordingly. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, who denied them and claimed trial. 10. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 21 documents in support of its case. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him and claimed false implication. 11. Learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 5 12. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2023 is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is urged that, as per the medical evidence of Dr. Karuna Yadav (PW-9), though signs of physical assault were found when the victim was examined within a few hours of the alleged incident, there were no signs of recent or forcible sexual intercourse, thereby rendering the allegation of rape unproved. It is contended that the incident, at best, amounts to simple assault and that a false allegation of rape has been levelled to give the matter undue seriousness. He further submits that the articles seized by the police were forwarded for FSL examination after an unexplained delay of two months, making the FSL Report (Ex. P-17) unreliable. The victim has admitted in her evidence that she was in love with the accused two years prior and that a marriage proposal had been discussed but later declined by her. Moreover, in her cross- examination (para-15), she stated that her relatives Abhilash and Somu had reached the spot and witnessed the incident, yet the prosecution neither cited nor examined them, thereby rendering her version doubtful. It is submitted that the conviction is unsustainable as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the entire case appears to be fabricated with the intention to falsely implicate the appellant. The findings of the Trial Court are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and further suffer from material contradictions between the statements of prosecution witnesses in court and their earlier statements under 6 Section 161 CrPC. Lastly, it is submitted that even otherwise, the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, learned State Counsel argues that the prosecution has fully proved its case and the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. It is submitted that the accused forcibly dragged the victim to a secluded spot near an imli tree, gagged her mouth, assaulted her, threatened to kill her, and thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, due to which she became unconscious and later regained consciousness in the hospital. The victim has consistently narrated the incident in the Dehati Nalishi, FIR, medical examination, and her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and her evidence remains trustworthy and natural. The medical report showing signs of physical assault, the seizure of her clothes and vaginal slide, and the seizure of the accused’s underwear along with the FSL report further corroborate the prosecution story. Minor inconsistencies do not affect the core of the case. It is urged that the investigation was fair, the charge-sheet was promptly filed, and there is no material suggesting false implication. Therefore, the findings of the learned Trial Court are well reasoned and call for no interference. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7 15. In this regard, the statement of the victim (PW-1) is of much importance. The victim (PW-1), educated up to Class 12th, in her statement has stated that on 10.12.2019, around 5–6 PM, she had gone to the house of her Mitan father Jagdish Chauhan. When she went to the backyard (badi) to urinate, the accused suddenly appeared, shut her mouth, dragged her near a tamarind tree and attempted to commit sexual acts forcibly. When she resisted, the accused assaulted her with a belt around her neck, and further beat her with a stick and a stone, causing multiple injuries. Due to the assault, she became semi-unconscious, during which the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She regained consciousness only at the hospital, where she found her mother, sister Divya and brother-in-law present. 16. She further stated that her statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. She also identified her signatures on the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-01), consent memo for medical examination (Ex.P- 03), seizure memo of her clothes (Ex.P-04) and her statement under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P-05). She confirmed that the police seized her underwear and lower worn at the time of the incident. 17. The mother of the victim (PW-2), has stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident, her granddaughter informed her that the victim had not returned for long after going to drop Jagdish Chauhan’s pregnant daughter-in-law. She immediately reached Jagdish Chauhan’s house along with her elder daughter and son- in-law, where they found the victim lying injured, crying and 8 unable to speak properly. A Mitanin (health worker) was trying to revive her by sprinkling water. She clearly stated that when the victim gained partial consciousness, she told her that the accused dragged her into the backyard, assaulted her with a belt, stick and stone, and committed rape forcibly. The mother accompanied her to the hospital and admitted that the police recorded the victim’s statement in her presence. She also supported the seizure of the victim’s lower garment and underwear and identified her signatures on the seizure memo (Ex.P-04). 18. The elder sister of the victim (PW-3), testified that she had come to her mother’s house on the day of the incident. On being informed that the victim was injured, she reached the spot immediately. She testified that the victim was taken to the police station and thereafter to the hospital on a motorcycle because her condition was serious. She corroborated that in the hospital the victim gained consciousness intermittently and narrated that the accused had beaten her and committed rape on her in the backyard of Jagdish Chauhan’s house. She confirmed that the police took her and the victim’s consent before medical examination. 19. Dr. Karuna Yadav, the medical officer at District Hospital Balodabazar, deposed that on 10.12.2019, the victim was produced before her for genital and medical examination. After obtaining written consent from the victim and her sister, she 9 conducted both general and genital examination. She found multiple bruise marks on the entire face, including the frontal, temporal and scalp regions, injuries on both elbows, ligature mark on the neck, consistent with forceful pressure, the mental condition of the victim was normal, secondary sexual characters well-developed, hymen was old-torn, no fresh tear, one vaginal smear slide tested in the district hospital lab showed no spermatozoa, while the second slide was sealed and handed over to police for FSL examination. The victim’s underwear and blue lower contained white stains which could be blood and were sealed and sent for FSL. The victim’s pregnancy test was negative. She proved her medical reports (Ex.P-03, Ex.P-17, Ex.P-18). 20. Statement of Doctor Who Examined the Accused (PW-4 – Dr. Om Datt Yadav), he deposed that on 11.12.2019, the accused was medically examined and found capable of performing sexual intercourse. The underwear seized from the accused was also examined and though no spermatozoa were found, the article was sealed and sent for FSL. He proved reports (Ex.P-13, Ex.P-14). 21. Statement of Investigating Officer (PW-10 – A.S.I. G.R. Kurre), he stated that he recorded the victim’s statement in the hospital, registered the Dehati Nalishi, seized her torn and stained clothes, prepared spot map, collected medical reports, and sent all seized properties, including clothes, slides and underwear of both victim 10 and accused, to FSL through proper procedure (Ex.P-16A). He also proved receiving of FSL report (Ex.P-21). 22. The FSL report stated that the victim’s lower (Exhibit A), underwear (Exhibit B) and vaginal smear slide (Exhibit C) tested positive for human spermatozoa. The accused’s underwear (Exhibit D) also showed semen stains. This crucial scientific evidence remained unrebutted by the defence. 23. From the consistent statements of the victim, her mother and sister, supported by timely medical examination, visible injuries, seizure of clothes, spot map and scientific FSL report, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused dragged the victim to the backyard, assaulted her and committed rape without her consent. 24. From the above sequence of evidences including the results of medical examinations, it becomes clear that the victim’s testimony is natural, consistent and trustworthy, and is fully corroborated by medical and scientific evidence. The injuries on her face, scalp, neck and elbows clearly demonstrate use of force. The presence of human spermatozoa on her underwear, lower and vaginal slide, and semen stains on the accused’s underwear strongly support the prosecution case. The defence version was found baseless, and no material contradiction was shown in the prosecution evidence that could discredit the victim. Leanred Trial Court’s 11 finding that the accused was the author of the crime is a well- reasoned finding of fact, based on reliable evidence, and no other view is reasonably possible. 25. Taking the entire evidence on record into consideration, both oral and documentary, this Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the accused under Sections 376, 323 and 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court was held to be legally sound and based on proper appreciation of evidence. 26. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 27. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2023. 28. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of 12 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan