1 2025:CGHC:58412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 588 of 2016 Aniruddha Sidar S/o Udai Lal Gond Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sanko, P.S. Tapkara, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Tapkara, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 02/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C 1973 is against impugned judgment of conviction and SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.12.04 10:35:00 +0530 2 order of sentence dated 24.04.2015 passed in Sessions trial No. 07/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 506-B of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine amount of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. U/s 376 (1)of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The essential facts for adjudication of this appeal are as follows: As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix, resident of Village Katabahal, P.S. Talsara, District Sundergarh (Orissa), had gone along with her aunt to a temple situated at Village Kotebira, PS Tapkara, District Jashpur (CG). After worship, the prosecutrix was sitting in the temple compound when the appellant, who used to perform pooja in the temple, allegedly took her into the store room situated in the temple premises, committed 3 rape upon her, and also threatened her. On the basis of her report, the police registered the aforesaid offences against the appellant and, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet. Thereafter, on 22.12.2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after committal, transferred the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge for trial. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, and thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. That, the learned trial Court, relying upon the statements of P.W.2, P.W.11, and P.W.8, convicted the appellant and passed the sentence as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 506-B and 376(1) of the IPC, and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. It is contended that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which the trial Court failed to appreciate. It is further urged that the 4 material prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, yet the trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant. Counsel submits that the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated, and the findings of the trial Court are based merely on surmises and conjectures without proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence deserve to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. "Whether the act of sexual intercourse committed by the appellant amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC or was it consensual?" 5 7. PW/2 victim in her deposition before the Court has stated that when she had shown her hand to the accused, known locally as “Baba,” he told her that she was suffering from stomach pain, headache and weakness, after which she returned home. About a week later, she again visited Kotebira with her brother to meet him. On that day, the accused performed certain rituals in the temple, after which she went back home. Subsequently, after some days, during another visit to Kotebira along with her aunt, the accused again performed rituals, and her aunt was also present. After the rituals, the accused told her aunt to stay back, stating that he would accompany the prosecutrix to get a kadahi (vessel) placed. He then took the prosecutrix to a house situated in front of the temple. As soon as they entered the room, the accused closed the door, threatened to kill her, forcibly removed her clothes and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he opened the door, and the prosecutrix returned to her aunt and narrated the entire incident to her. The accused followed them and threatened both the prosecutrix and her aunt not to disclose the incident to anyone, otherwise he would kill them. In cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that the first 6 and only incident of rape committed upon her occurred on 17.08.2009, and apart from this incident no other act had taken place. She admitted that she lodged the report on 09.11.2009 at Police Station Tapkara. She denied the suggestion that between 17.08.2009 and 09.11.2009 she continued visiting the Kotebira temple and had also gone there on 26.10.2009. She further admitted that she had not informed the Sarpanch, Kotwar, or any village authority about the incident, nor had she disclosed the incident to her parents or family members upon reaching home. She admitted that she had gone to the temple on 02.11.2009 and returned home on 03.11.2009, and during her stay at the temple, some persons were with her. She further admitted that she had met the accused during this visit and had taken his blessings along with the others, yet she did not disclose the incident to her companions. She also admitted that on the day when Janak and Balidev had met the accused, the accused told them that he and the prosecutrix had illicit relations, and she came to know that this fact had been conveyed to them. She stated that it was only after learning that the accused had informed Janak and Balidev about their alleged relationship that she 7 lodged the report. She candidly admitted that had the accused not told Janak and Balidev about the alleged relationship, or had Janak and Balidev not come to know of it, she would not have lodged the report. 8. Balidev (PW-1) in cross-examination, stated that he did not have any knowledge of any alleged illicit relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused. He admitted that even when he had gone to the house of the prosecutrix, neither the prosecutrix nor her father had told him anything about any such alleged relationship. He further stated that when he, along with Janak (father of Udit), had gone to Kotebira to meet the accused, Janak too had not mentioned anything regarding any illicit relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused. 9. Mother (PW-2), who was declared hostile, stated that her daughter used to complain of pain in her hands and legs, but she herself was at home at the time of the alleged incident and therefore had no knowledge about what had occurred. She further stated that although her daughter used to go for treatment, she did not know where she went. She deposed that her daughter never informed her about the incident. 8 10. Aunt of the victim (PW-3)stated that she knew the accused, and that the prosecutrix, was the daughter of her husband’s elder brother. She deposed that the incident occurred last year when she, along with the prosecutrix, had gone to the Kotebira temple. According to her, the accused told victim in her presence to take a kadahi (vessel) to a room of the temple premises used as a kitchen and storage room. She further stated that she herself was sitting near the river at that time, and after about an hour the prosecutrix came to her and told her that when she took the kadahi inside the room, the accused closed the door from inside and outraged her modesty and committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix also informed her that the accused had threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone or did not obey him. In cross-examination, the witness stated that although she and the prosecutrix had stayed in the temple overnight following the alleged incident, the prosecutrix did not tell her anything regarding any wrongful act committed by the accused during their stay. She admitted that on the day she accompanied the prosecutrix to the temple and stayed there overnight, she had not noticed any injuries on the 9 prosecutrix’s body, nor were her clothes torn. She further admitted that on the day of the alleged incident, when she and the prosecutrix had gone to the temple, the accused had not extended any threat to them. She also stated that during their entire stay at the temple and even while returning home, the accused had neither behaved badly towards them nor given any threat to kill them. 11. As per the MLC (Ex. P/10), the prosecutrix was examined and on external examination, a healed scar measuring approximately 21.5 cm was found over the extensor aspect of the right forearm. On internal examination, All secondary sexual characteristics were noted to be well-developed, the hymen was found ruptured. In the opinion of the medical ofÏcer, the findings suggested that the prosecutrix had experienced a few episodes of sexual intercourse in the past. 12. Having carefully evaluated the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 376(1) and 506-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-2) suffers from material inconsistencies and contradictions. She admitted in her cross-examination that after the alleged 10 incident dated 17.08.2009, she continued to visit the Kotebira temple on several occasions, including on 26.10.2009 and 02.11.2009, during which she met the appellant, took his blessings, and stayed in the temple premises with other persons. Significantly, she did not disclose the alleged incident to any of the persons accompanying her, including her companions, villagers, the Kotwar, Sarpanch, or even her own family members. She further admitted that she lodged the FIR only after learning that the appellant had allegedly informed Janak and Balidev about an illicit relationship, and that if such information had not been shared by the appellant, she would not have lodged the report. This admission strikes at the root of the prosecution case and renders the allegation of forcible rape highly doubtful. 13. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 also does not support the prosecution story. PW-3, the aunt, though initially stating that the prosecutrix told her about the incident, admitted in cross- examination that during their overnight stay at the temple after the alleged occurrence, the prosecutrix did not tell her anything about any wrongful act committed by the accused. She also admitted that she never saw any torn clothes or 11 injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. Importantly, she categorically stated that the accused did not extend any threat to either her or the prosecutrix at any time during their stay in the temple or while returning home. PW-1 similarly stated that neither the prosecutrix nor her father ever informed him of any such incident. 14. The allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506-B IPC is, therefore, wholly unsubstantiated. No witness, including the prosecutrix, has provided consistent or reliable evidence of any threat issued by the appellant. On the contrary, the prosecutrix’s own admission that she met the appellant multiple times after the alleged incident, took his blessings, and never complained of any threat, clearly undermines the prosecution version. The failure to report any threat at the earliest opportunity, coupled with the absence of corroboration from other witnesses, makes the allegation of intimidation both unreliable and unconvincing. 15. The medical evidence (Ex. P/10) merely shows that the hymen was ruptured and that the prosecutrix had experienced a few episodes of sexual intercourse in the past. However, the medical ofÏcer has not opined that the injuries or findings 12 were recent or attributable to the appellant. It is well-settled that medical evidence of past intercourse cannot, by itself, establish the commission of rape by the accused. 16. It is the trite law that a conviction for rape can be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix/victim, provided that her evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and appears to be natural and truthful. However, if the version given by the prosecutrix is inconsistent, unsupported by any medical evidence, or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and believable in the case set up by the prosecutrix, the Court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. (See: Birka Shiva v The State of Telangana decided on 16-7-2025 in SLP (Cr.) No.1445 of 2025) 17. In view of these material contradictions, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of medical or ocular corroboration, and the complete lack of proof of any threat or force exerted upon the prosecutrix, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 18. The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds 13 are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 19. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib