1 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 2025:CGHC:56530-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1216 of 2025 XYZ Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dharmendra Singh @ Dharmendra Sidar S/o Raja Surendra Bahadur Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Peela Mahal Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) CRA No. 1027 of 2025 Dharmendra Singh @ Dharmendra Sidar S/o Raja Surendra Bahadhur Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Pila Mahal, Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.), (In Jail Since 21.05.2025) Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. - Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant XYZ in CRA No. 1216/2025 : Ms. Hamida Siddque, Advocate For Appellant- Dharmendra Singh in CRA No. 102/2025 : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.24 14:46:39 +0530 2 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 20/11/2025 1. CRA No. 1216/2025 has been filed by the victim seeking enhancement of the conviction of accused/appellant Dharmendra Singh @ Dharmendra, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sakti, District Sakti, in Sessions Case No. 26/2023 whereas CRA No. 1027/2025 has been filed by appellant Dharmendra Singh challenging his conviction and sentence passed in the same Sessions Case. Thus, they are being considered together and decided by this common judgment. CRA No. 1027/2025 : 2. This appeal under Section 415 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 21/05/2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 26/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sakti, District Sakti, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. 3 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 Under Section 376(1) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10000/-, with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Facts of the case are that on 10.01.2022, the prosecutrix (PW5) appeared at the police station and submitted a written application reporting that on 09.01.2022, at about 9:00 p.m., when she was alone at her house, accused Dharmendra Sidar, resident of Peela Mahal, Sakti, entered her house. It is alleged that the accused exposed his private part to the prosecutrix; caught hold of her; and inserted his private part (penis) into her mouth. Thereafter, the accused removed his clothes and attempted to tear the prosecutrix’s saree and blouse. During her resistance, the bangles worn by the prosecutrix broke and fell on the ground. It is further alleged that the accused tore the prosecutrix’s petticoat and blouse. When the prosecutrix raised an alarm, the accused fled from the spot. The prosecutrix informed her brother about the incident through mobile phone. On the basis of her written report (Ex. P-6), an FIR (Ex. P-7) was registered under Sections 450, 354 and 377 IPC at Police Station Sakti. During investigation, the statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses were recorded, and the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC (Ex. P-1) was also recorded. Accused was also medically examined. Upon completion of investigation, finding that offences under 4 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 Sections 450, 354, 354(B) and 376 IPC were made out against the accused, Section 377 IPC was deleted and Sections 354(B) and 376 IPC were added. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. Upon perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents annexed thereto, a prima facie case was found against the accused Dharmendra Sidar for offences under Sections 450, 354 and 376(1) of the IPC. Separate charges under the said sections were framed and read over to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which he denied all incriminating material appearing against him and pleaded innocence, stating that he had been falsely implicated. In his defence, four witnesses were examined. 4. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The judgment of conviction is unsustainable as the appellant has been falsely implicated due to long-standing family disputes relating to property, adoption and succession, providing a strong motive to fabricate the 5 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 allegations. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Ever since his coronation as Yuvraj of Sakti, series of false complaints have been lodged against the appellant, and the present case is a continuation of that pattern. Learned counsel would submit that an earlier complaint made by the prosecutrix was found false by the SDO; likewise, the Dy. S.P. enquiry dated 06.03.2022, after examining the CCTV footage, also reported that no such incident occurred. The trial Court failed to consider these material findings. Crucial evidence e.g. call-detail records of the prosecutrix and the alleged 112 call was not collected. CCTV footage shows the prosecutrix reaching the police station around 9:30 p.m. on the same night, contradicting her version, and she had refused to lodge any complaint at that time. Material witnesses like the then T.I. Rupak Sharma, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, were not examined. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution version; Dr. Kiran Binjhwar (PW-6) found no injury or indication of the acts alleged. Multiple prosecution witnesses, including PW-1, PW-4, PW-8 and PW-10 (husband of the prosecutrix), have also not supported the prosecution case. Even from the version of the victim it is quite vivid that she is not a sterling witness. It is therefore submitted that the investigation suffers from material omissions, the prosecution evidence is unreliable, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the conviction is fully justified and supported by the consistent testimony of the prosecutrix, whose 6 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 evidence is reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction. The torn clothes and broken bangles corroborate her version of resistance. It is argued that absence of injuries is not fatal to the prosecution case, nor can preliminary enquiries or CCTV footage outweigh the direct and cogent evidence given on oath. The defence theory of false implication is speculative and unsupported. Therefore, he prays that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment of conviction be affirmed. 7. Learned counsel for the victim in CRA No. 1216/2025 submits that the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is grossly inadequate in view of the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, and the serious trauma suffered by the victim. According to the victim, the present is a case of hate crime. It is urged that the act of the appellant was deliberate, forceful and committed in a manner that reflects a high degree of culpability, thereby warranting a punishment that reflects not only deterrence but also societal condemnation. Learned counsel would submit that the appellant exhibited no remorse, and the impact on the victim both physical and psychological was substantial, which the Trial Court failed to adequately consider. It is further argued that the sentence awarded does not meet the proportionality standards recognized in law and falls short of the legislative intent envisaged for such offences. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may enhance the sentence to a level commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, so as to ensure justice to the victim and uphold public confidence in the judicial process. To buttress her contention, learned counsel would place reliance in the matter of Ajahar Ali v. State of West Bengal (2013) 10 SCC 31. 7 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 450, 354 and 376(1) of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. The Prosecutrix (PW-5), in her deposition, stated that on 09.01.2022 at about 9:00 p.m., while she was alone in her house, the appellant entered her room from the backside; caught hold of her; and thereafter held her neck and attempted to outrage her modesty by force. She further deposed that while pressing her neck, the appellant inserted his private part (penis) into her mouth. She stated that she resisted, during which her petticoat and blouse were torn and her bangles broke. She also stated that upon her raising an alarm, the appellant fled from the spot. Subsequently, she called her brother and narrated the incident, who, in turn, told her to dial 112. She deposed that on the night of the incident, at about 10–10:30 p.m. on 09.01.2022, she went to Police Station Sakti and gave information about the incident. Since Inspector Rupak Sharma was quarantined due to COVID, her written complaint was not taken that night and she was asked to come the next day. Accordingly, on the next day at about 12 noon she again went to the police station, but she was informed that the Inspector would come in the evening. She returned in the evening and submitted a typed written complaint, which is Ex.P-6, bearing her signatures. She deposed that on the basis of her 8 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 written complaint, the police registered the FIR against the accused, which is Ex.P-7. She was taken to CHC Sakti for medical examination by a lady doctor, who conducted her genital examination. The police prepared a spot map at her instance (Ex.D-1) and seized her torn blouse, petticoat with cotton string, and broken bangles under seizure memo Ex.P-8. She stated that her statement was recorded by a lady police officer at Police Station Nagaroda, after which she was taken before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur, where her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded as Ex.P-9. About a year after the incident, the Patwari prepared another spot map (Ex.P-3) on the basis of her narration. She further stated that at the time of the incident, the accused came from the back staircase. There was no CCTV camera installed near her room on the upper floor at that time and the area remained dark. She does not know how many CCTV cameras are installed in the house or who monitor them. During cross-examination, she stated that she was married in 2005, has one daughter, and resides in the upper floor of the house, while her husband, daughter, mother-in-law and sister-in-law live on the ground floor. She admitted that matrimonial dispute between her and her husband is pending since 2020. She denied the suggestion that the accused is related to the royal family, stating that he is the son of her father-in-law’s servant. She denied knowledge about matrimonial disputes between her elder father-in-law and elder mother-in-law. She stated that her elder mother-in-law had told her that such a case had 9 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 been dismissed. She admitted that her elder father-in-law resides in ‘Peela Mahal’, whereas her elder mother-in-law resides with her for the last one year. She stated that her native place is Raebareli (U.P.) and that she had informed the police about both her mobile numbers. She admitted informing her cousin Dipendra Singh, residing in Shivpuri (M.P.), about the incident, who came to Sakti 3-4 days later. She denied that her hand written complaint dated 09.01.2022 related only to quarrels with her husband and sister-in-law. She stated that she had torn the hand written complaint and got it typed the next day. She admitted that on 09.01.2022 when she first went to the police station, her husband, sister-in-law and daughter were also present there. She denied the suggestion that she had complained only about domestic quarrel that night. She admitted speaking to her father on her mobile phone at the police station. She denied suggestions about quarrel with her sister-in- law that night and about wearing a particular dress. She admitted that a CCTV camera was installed in the staircase area before the incident and identified her photograph in Ex.D-4. She further admitted that around 9:30 p.m. she had come downstairs where her husband, sister-in-law, daughter and servants were present. She stated that they were stopping her from going to the police station. She denied that before the doctor she narrated only a story of domestic quarrel. She reiterated that the accused had put his penis inside her mouth, and denied the suggestion that such an act was impossible. She stated that her throat was tightly held, and when she bent down to open a rice sack, the accused suddenly 10 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 came, grabbed her and forced his penis into her mouth. She admitted that this detail about the rice sack and the accused coming suddenly from behind was stated by her for the first time in court and was not mentioned in her police statement or Section 164 CrPC statement. She admitted giving several earlier complaints against the accused, and also that her elder mother-in-law had lodged 3 FIRs against him. She admitted that there were cross-complaints by the accused and her husband. She admitted that the accused had approached the SC/ST police station and that the High Court had summoned the SDOP Savita Das and Inspector Rupak Sharma during the anticipatory bail proceedings. She denied suggestions that she or influential persons were pressurizing the investigation. She denied that the accused had not gone upstairs on the date of incident. She maintained that the incident occurred when she was bending to open a rice bag. She admitted several omissions from her police statement and Section 164 CrPC statement, such as she did not state earlier that she was subjected to “forceful attempt to commit rape; she did not state that the accused “removed his penis from her mouth; she did not state that she had dialed 112 or that she went to the police station with the 112 team; she did not state that delay occurred because police said they needed approval of the SHO. This witness further admitted that she had earlier lodged a complaint in 2021 against the accused alleging assault, and that a cross- complaint existed. She stated that during the 28.03.2021 incident she was assaulted by the accused and his companions while returning from 11 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 Peela Mahal. She admitted having earlier made a complaint to the Women Helpline in 2021 alleging that her elder mother-in-law was confined in Peela Mahal. She denied having knowledge about complaints filed by her sister-in-law against her. She admitted that her family belongs to the Thakur Rajput community, while her husband and the accused are Gonds. She admitted that her husband had lodged a complaint alleging caste-related abuse by her. She stated that the accused got married in November 2022 and she did not attend the marriage. She denied that her cousin Dipendra and others came armed to stop the marriage. She denied that any complaint of 28.11.2022 with CCTV footage was lodged by the accused against her. She stated that since that day, her elder mother-in-law has been living with her. She admitted that on 10.01.2022 there was a family court hearing in her matrimonial case, and she remained present till 3:30 p.m. The police station is located opposite the Family Court. She stated she typed her complaint (Ex.P-6) in the court premises before filing it at the police station at around 8:20 p.m. She stated that the police delayed the registration of her complaint as they were waiting for the SHO’s approval. She admitted this was not mentioned in Ex.P-6, her police statement or her Section 164 statement. 11. PW-6, Dr. Kiran Binjhwar, a PG student residing at CIMS Bilaspur, deposed that she was posted as a Medical Officer at MCH Community Health Centre, Sakti from 29.05.2019 to 04.11.2022. She stated that on 11.01.2022 at about 1:10 p.m., the woman constable No. 299, 12 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 Divyansha Sidar, brought the prosecutrix, aged 47 years, before her for medical examination. After obtaining consent, she conducted the physical examination and found scratch marks on the prosecutrix’s shoulder and back, each approximately 1.5 cm in length. On general examination, the mental status of the prosecutrix was normal, her blood pressure was 110/70 mmHg, pulse rate was 80 per minute, and no other injury marks were found on the body. In her opinion, the injuries appeared to be more than 24 hours old, were simple in nature, and seemed to have been caused by a nail. She identified the medical examination report as Exhibit P-10, bearing her signatures from portion A to A. In cross-examination, she stated that the prosecutrix was brought before her on 11.01.2022 at 1:10 p.m., and that the requisition given by the Investigating Officer concerning Exhibit P-10 did not mention anything about injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. She further admitted that such scratches could also occur while rubbing the skin to remove dirt. She stated that in her report she had not used the word “shoulder” but had only written “back side.” She admitted that her report did not mention an examination of the mouth, although she had conducted it, and she found no injury, scratch or abnormality in the mouth. She stated that the prosecutrix only disclosed to her that she had been assaulted but did not specify the nature of the assault; and that if the prosecutrix had informed her of any further details, she would have recorded them. The witness was read over her statement and she 13 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 admitted it to be correctly recorded. 12. PW-10, the husband of the prosecutrix, stated that he knows the accused Dharmendra. He deposed that the police had come to the premises known as “Safed Mahal” and had removed a black CP Plus DVR in the presence of witnesses, preparing seizure memo Ex. P-1 on which his signatures appear. In cross-examination, he admitted that the prosecutrix is his wife and that the police had earlier visited his house, viewed the CCTV footage of 09-01-2022 around 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on the TV screen by operating the DVR, but did not seize it at that time. He stated that the footage showed the prosecutrix coming down from her room on the first floor of Safed Mahal and that at that time he, his sister, his daughter, the accused Dharmendra, and one Rohit were present and visible in the footage. He further admitted that the DVR was ultimately seized on 23-01-2022 and that it contained recordings for about seven days. He stated that on 09-01-2022 he had lodged a complaint at Police Station Sakti regarding the conduct of the prosecutrix, and that while they were making this complaint, the prosecutrix also came to the police station. He further stated that the police viewed the CCTV footage the next day. He also stated that on 09-01-2022 the prosecutrix had brought an application to the police station but chose not to lodge any complaint, saying she would complain the next day. He admitted that on 10-01- 2022 there was a scheduled hearing before the Family Court, Sakti, in the matrimonial case between him and the prosecutrix, and that both of them remained in the court premises throughout the day, and after his 14 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 statement was read over to him, he affirmed it to be correct. 13. PW-1, Deepak Sidar, son of Kiritram Sidar, who works in camera fitting, stated that about one and a half to two years ago the police had seized a DVR from Safed Mahal, Sakti. Prior to the seizure, he had taken out the CCTV footage and handed the print to Rohit. He deposed that the police seized the DVR from him, and the seizure memo is Ex. P-1, on which his signatures appear. He was declared hostile, and upon being confronted by the prosecution, he stated that the recording remains stored for about 15 days. He further admitted that the proceedings of Ex. P-1 were carried out at the police station, but he did not know who had removed the DVR hard disk and brought it to the station. He also admitted that the proceedings of Ex. P-1 were not conducted in his presence and that he had only signed the document. After his statement was read over to him, he affirmed it to be correct. 14. PW4- Sheetal Kumar Sahu, house worker, in his deposition that the police personnel had taken his sign on a blank paper. He deposed that he has no knowledge that the police has taken the photo of the appellant from the victim, which was seized and he had signed the same. He has categorically denied that he has no knowledge as to why his signature were taken for Ex.P/5. 15. Having considered the evidence on record with utmost circumspection, we find that the prosecution case suffers from material inconsistencies, omissions and infirmities which strike at the root of the allegation of rape. The foundation of the prosecution story rests on the sole testimony 15 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 of the prosecutrix; however, her deposition in Court introduces several new facts which were never stated either in her written complaint (Ex. P-6), her police statement, or her statement under Section 164 CrPC. These improvements relate to essential components of the incident, including the circumstances under which the accused allegedly entered the room, the act of the prosecutrix bending to open a rice bag, the accused grabbing her from behind, and details of oral penetration. Such substantial embellishments render her testimony unsafe to rely upon without independent corroboration. 16. The prosecutrix admitted in cross-examination that she did not mention in her statement under Section 164 CrPC that the accused had inserted his penis in her mouth or had removed it, nor did she earlier state that she dialed 112 or that she accompanied the police to the station on the same night. These are not minor omissions but are vital omissions relating to the gravest part of the allegation. The settled position of law is that when the witness introduces a completely new version for the first time in Court, such testimony is liable to be discarded unless duly corroborated. 17. The medical evidence, instead of supporting the prosecution case, materially contradicts it. PW-6, the Medical Officer, found no injury, swelling, scratch or abnormality in the mouth, although the allegation is of forcible oral penetration. She categorically stated that the prosecutrix did not narrate any such act to her. The only injuries noted were two superficial scratches on the back, which the doctor herself admitted 16 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 could have been caused by rubbing the skin to clean dirt, and appeared more than 24 hours old. The absence of any injury in the oral cavity is a circumstance which significantly weakens the allegation of violent oral penetration as deposed for the first time during trial. 18. The conduct of the prosecutrix immediately after the incident also raises substantial doubt. The CCTV footage, as admitted by PW-10 (husband of the prosecutrix), captured the prosecutrix coming downstairs within minutes of the alleged incident, where her husband, daughter, sister-in- law, the accused and servants were present. There is no behaviour indicative of trauma or distress. PW-10 further admitted that the prosecutrix had come to the police station that very night but refused to lodge any complaint. The written complaint was submitted only the next day, after significant deliberation, and was typed by her in the court premises. Such unexplained delay and her contradictory conduct erode the reliability of her version. 19. In view of the medical evidence adduced by the PW6, Dr. Kiran Binjhwar, which is not corroborated with the allegations levelled by the Victim, and looking to the contradictions in the statement of the Victim and other prosecution witnesses, the version of the victim cannot be treated as sterling witness for contradictions and omissions. 20. The prosecution has also withheld crucial material. The prosecution did not produce the call-detail records of the prosecutrix, the alleged 112 call, or the phone records of her brother to whom she claimed to have informed the incident. More importantly, the police officer who first 17 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 dealt with the prosecutrix on the night of the incident, Inspector Rupak Sharma, was not examined, although his role was pivotal. The defence has brought on record that the SDO and DySP inquiries conducted soon after the incident and after viewing the CCTV footage did not support the allegation. Non-examination of these material witnesses warrants an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. 21. Several prosecution witnesses, including PW-1, PW-4, PW-8 and PW- 10, have not supported the prosecution case. PW-1 and PW-10 admitted that the DVR was viewed by the police on 09.01.2022 itself and that the CCTV footage did not reveal the accused going upstairs at the relevant time. PW-4 categorically stated that his signatures were taken on blank papers, casting serious doubt on the fairness of the investigation concerning seizures. 22. The defence version of long-standing family disputes, property issues, prior cross-litigations, and repeated hostility between the parties is not without basis. The prosecutrix herself admitted multiple cases filed by her, her elder mother-in-law, her husband, and the accused against each other. Though motive alone cannot determine guilt, where the evidence is inconsistent and uncorroborated, such background becomes relevant in assessing the probability of false implication. 23. On cumulative evaluation of the evidence, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The material omissions, contradictions between the prosecutrix’s deposition and her earlier statements, absence of medical corroboration, 18 CRA Nos. 1216 of 2025 & 1027 of 2025 inconsistent conduct, failure to produce essential evidence, non- examination of crucial witnesses, and the testimony of hostile witnesses together create a serious dent in the prosecution case. In such circumstances, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction. 24. Accordingly, the accused/appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The conviction recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 25. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant Dharmendra Singh @ Dharmendra Sidar by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sakti, District Sakti, in Sessions Case No. 26/2023, vide judgment dated 21.05.2025, are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 450, 354 and 376(1) of the IPC. 26. The appellant is in custody since 21.05.2025. As his conviction stands set aside, he shall be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. The Superintendent of the concerned Jail shall ensure compliance without delay. CRA No. 1216 of 2025 27. In view of the acquittal recorded in CRA No. 1027/2025, the connected appeal, CRA No. 1216/2025, filed by the victim seeking enhancement of sentence, does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri