1 CRA No. 1559 of 2015 2025:CGHC:59668-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1559 of 2015 [Arising out of judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.82/2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.]  Khemanidhi Yadav S/o Bhadeshwar Yadav, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kadamdodi, Thana Kapu, Civil And Rev. District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent-State :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (09.12.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant herein, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Raigarh, ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.12.09 16:48:09 +0530 2 CRA No. 1559 of 2015 Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.82/2013, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 450 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of ₹500/-; in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo additional imprisonment for three months and also convicted for offence under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he has to ₹ undergo additional imprisonment for six months. Prosecution story:- 2. The case projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that on 24.02.2013, at village Kadamdodi, Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh, in the late night, at about 2:00 am, the appellant tress-passed into the house of the major victim (PW-1) and committed sexual intercourse upon her against her wishes and thereby committed the offences in question. Against the said act of the appellant, FIR was lodged by major victim (PW-1) vide Exs.P/1 & P/16 on 27.02.2013. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P/3. Panchnama and spot map were prepared vide Ex.P/4. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. Major victim was medically examined by Dr. Uma Agrawal (PW-4). As per medical report of the victim 3 CRA No. 1559 of 2015 (Ex.P/7) no external physical injuries were found over the body of the victim, however, she was found to be habitual in intercourse. Vaginal slides of the victim were prepared and her clothes were also seized. Other articles were also seized. Slides and Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis, however, FSL report has not been brought on record by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 3. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents, whereas, defence, in support of its case, has examined 1 witness and exhibited 3 documents. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the 4 CRA No. 1559 of 2015 appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the Parties:- 6. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified on convicting appellant for offences in question. He would also submit that there is delay of three days in lodging the FIR and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution, as per requirement of law. He would further submit that prior to lodging of the FIR by the victim, on 25.02.2013, the accused/appellant, was beaten and abused by the victim’s husband (PW-2) for which a report was lodged on 26.02.2013 and after lodging the report by the appellant, the victim has lodged a false report. He would further submit that the victim has not made any attempt to come out from the clutches of the appellant and it shows that the present case is a false case. He would further submit that medical evidence has not supported the case of the prosecution and even forensic evidence has not been brought on record by the prosecution in support of its case and even otherwise, the victim’s statement is not of sterling quality 5 CRA No. 1559 of 2015 and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 7. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State Court, would support the impugned judgment and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. He would also submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence in question relying upon the statement of victim and her husband, who clearly supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein above and gone through the records precisely. Discussion & Analysis:- 9. In the instant case, medical evidence (Ex.P/7) of the victim proved by Dr. Uma Agrawal, has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the medical report of the victim (Ex.P/7), she was found to be habitual in sexual intercourse, however, no external physical injuries were found over the body of the victim. In support of the medical evidence, forensic evidence has not been brought on record by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution, in support of its case, though the vaginal 6 CRA No. 1559 of 2015 slides of the victim and other seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. In view of the above, medical evidence is of no use to the prosecution. 10. Furthermore, the case of the prosecution is based on the ocular testimony of major victim (PW-1) and also on the testimony of her husband (PW-2) to whom she informed about the incident, on which the trial Court has relied upon to convict the appellant for the offences in question. First of all, as per the prosecution, the incident has taken place on 24.02.2013 in the house of the victim when her husband (PW-2) and other family members were not present in the house as PW-2 and other family members had gone to attend Navdharamayan which was held half kilometer away from her house in the village. As per victim’s statement, she immediately informed her husband (PW-2) about the incident on the next day i.e. 25.02.2013, at about 6:00 am, when PW-2 came to the house, however, no FIR was lodged by the victim or her husband immediately after the incident and the FIR has come to be lodged on 27.02.2013, with a delay of 3 days. For the delay, explanation has been given by the prosecution that due to panchayat meeting, FIR has not been lodged in time and delay occurred. However, as per the statements of victim (PW-1) and victim’s husband (PW-2) , meeting was held on 25.02.2013, but 7 CRA No. 1559 of 2015 still after the meeting no FIR was lodged and after conclusion of meeting on 26.02.2013, the appellant lodged the FIR against the victim’s husband for committing maar-peet, which has been admitted by victim (PW-1) in para 11 of her statement and victim’s husband (PW-2) himself at para 6 of his statement by stating that he (PW-2) assaulted and abused the appellant on account of which the appellant lodged the FIR which is also confirmed by Investigating Officer Tulasiram Sidar (PW-9), who in his statement before the Court has stated that against the victim’s husband (PW-2), offence under Sections 294 & 506B of the IPC has been lodged against PW-2 in Crime Case No.16/13 and he has also charge-sheeted before the JMFC, Dharamjaigarh. As such, in view of the above, delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Moreover, not lodging the report on 24.02.2013 or 25.02.2013 and lodging the report after lodging of the FIR by the appellant on 26.02.2013 against the victim’s husband (PW-2), chances of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out more particularly in absence of medical and forensic evidences in the nature of the present case and, even otherwise, statement of the victim is not of “sterling quality” and she is not “sterling witness”. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt. 8 CRA No. 1559 of 2015 Conclusion:- 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2015 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences in question, is hereby set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Since the appellant is stated to be on bail, he need not surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Ankit