1 2025:CGHC:61012-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 444 of 2015 1 - Bharat Lal Rathiya, S/o Phool Singh Rathiya, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Hati, Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Narayan @ Ramnarayan, S/o Kartik Ram Rathiya, aged about 28 years, R/o Village- Hati, Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Netram Manjhwar, S/o Phool Singh Manjhwar, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Hati, Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tarachand Rathiya, S/o Gosairam Rathiya, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Hati, Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.12.16 17:07:59 +0530 2 Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (15.12.2025) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1. (I) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., the appellants herein have preferred this appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Raigarh (C.G.), in Session Trial No.100/2012, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 506-B of IPC RI for 3 years and to pay fine of ₹100/- each; in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month U/s 376 (2)(g) of IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of 10,000/- each; in default of ₹ payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently (II) The Trial Court has acquitted the appellants of offence punishable under Sections 363, 354 & 376/511 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW- 3 1) went to a fair in the village on the night of 6.10.2011 with her friend (PW-2), aunt, and maternal aunt. On the morning of 07.10.2011, at around 4:30 AM, when she needed to relieve herself and was standing with her friend (PW-2), the accused, along with another person, suddenly approached her, grabbed her hand, and, with the intention of molesting her, covered her mouth and tried to drag her away. Her friend (PW-2) then brought Ramdhan and Shatrughan, who were relatives from Khadgaon, to intervene. The accused, fearing consequences, fled, otherwise they would have committed a more serious offence. The prosecutrix (PW-1) returned home and narrated the incident to her grandmother. Subsequently, on 11.10.2011, she filed a written complaint (Exhibit P-1) at the police station, based on which First Information Report (Exhibit P-8) was registered at Chhal Police Station under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, the prosecutrix filed a second written complaint (Exhibit P-2) on 12.10.2011, alleging that she was raped during the incident, and again filed another written complaint (Exhibit P-3) on 18.10.2011, at the police station. The police prepared a site plan of the incident. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Her clothes were seized and sent for examination. Statements of the 4 witnesses were recorded. After the complete investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. Statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied circumstances appearing against them in prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, on behalf of the accused/appellants, N.R. Ratre (DW-1) was examined in their defence. He stated that police duty had been assigned to the Hati village fair area, but no complaint regarding any incident had been received. 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which has been challenged in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that written complaint was filed with a delay of approximately four days. The prosecutrix submitted a total of three written complaints, marked as Exhibits P-1, P-2, and P-3, which contain serious contradictions regarding the sequence of events. Ramdhan and Shatrughan, who were independent witnesses, were not examined. The prosecutrix (PW-1) did not inform her friend (PW-2) or relative (PW-3) immediately 5 after the incident. Police personnel were also deployed in the fair ground, but no complaint was received there either. The medical evidence also does not provide a conclusive opinion regarding the alleged rape of the prosecutrix. The chemical examination report has also not been submitted. Thus, the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is not corroborated by the medical evidence or the chemical examination report. There are serious contradictions in her statement. No satisfactory explanation has been provided for the four-day delay in filing the report. In such circumstances, the prosecutrix's statement is questionable. Therefore, the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court, based on prosecutrix's testimony as credible, is not justified in the eyes of the law. Hence, the appeal may be allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be set-aside, and the appellants may be acquitted. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the finding recorded by the Trial Court regarding conviction and sentences of the appellants is based on sufficient and reliable evidence, which does not require any interference. Therefore, the contention made by counsel for the appellants is not acceptable, hence, the appeal may be 6 dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The evidence presented by the prosecution shows that the prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that the incident occurred on the night of 06.10.2011-07.10.2011. She filed a total of three written complaints regarding the incident at the police station, marked as Exhibits P-1, P-2, and P-3, dated 11.10.2011, 12.10.2011 and 18.10.2011, respectively. The prosecutrix stated that she went to the police station with different individuals to file each of these three written complaints, and there are fundamental differences and contradictions in all three complaints. According to the prosecution's case, on the said night, the prosecutrix (PW- 1) went to a fair with her friend (PW-2), her aunt Ratna and her maternal aunt. However, neither aunt Ratna nor the maternal aunt were examined by the prosecution. At the fair, the prosecutrix also met her relatives, Shatrughan and Ramdhan, who were present with her at the time of the incident, meaning thereby they also witnessed the incident. However, the prosecution did not examine either Ramdhan or Shatrughan. According to the prosecutrix, after returning home after the incident, she also told her 7 grandmother Devlabai, about the incident, but grandmother Devlabai was also not examined by the prosecution. 9. In the case of prosecution, key witnesses are prosecutrix (PW-1), her friend (PW-2), and Sarpanch Bindawati (PW-3) out of whom Sarpanch Bindawati (PW-3) is a hearsay witness, as the prosecutrix narrated her the entire story after the incident. According to Sarpanch Bindawati (PW-3), the prosecutrix did not tell her about the rape incident. Sarpanch Bindawati also stated that Panchayat officials were deployed to maintain peace at the fair, and a police officer from Chhal Police Station, Sanjay Yadav, was also on duty. However, it is noteworthy that the prosecutrix did not report the incident to any of the Panchayat officials or the police officer on duty. According to defence witness Inspector N.R. Ratre, police personnel were deployed at the fair, and he confirmed this fact based on the daily diary entries (Exhibits D-1 and D-2). However, it is significant that, according to this defence witness, the police personnel deployed there were not informed of the incident. Since Sarpanch Bindawati (PW-3) is not an eyewitness to the incident, her testimony is not of much significance in supporting the prosecution case. 8 10. The prosecutrix’s friend (PW-2) stated in her Court statement that when she and the prosecutrix were at the fair around 2:00-2:30 AM, standing near a borewell, the accused/appellants came and dragged the prosecutrix away. The prosecutrix tried to scream, but they covered her mouth and threatened her. The friend then went home out of fear. The prosecutrix admitted that the fair was very crowded. In such circumstances, the friend's statement that she went home out of fear and did not tell anyone about the incident makes her testimony suspected. According to the friend (PW-2), she and the prosecutrix met Ramdhan and Shatrughan at the fair ground, but the fact that neither Ramdhan nor Shatrughan informed any of the panchayat workers or police officers stationed at the fair about the incident also casts doubt on the prosecution's version of events. The friend (PW-2) also admitted during cross- examination that the prosecutrix told her about the incident on 12.10.2011, which is the same date on which the written complaint (Exhibit P-2) was filed by the prosecutrix at the police station. This six-day delay also makes the prosecution case doubtful. 11. According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was raped. However, Dr. Nancy Lakra (PW-4), who 9 medically examined the prosecutrix on 14.10.2011, and submitted a report (Exhibit P-10), stated that no injury marks were found on the prosecutrix's body. The doctor also stated that it could not be definitively determined whether or not sexual intercourse had taken place. No test report has been received in respect of the clothes seized from the prosecutrix and sent for chemical analysis. Therefore, since the prosecutrix's statement is not corroborated by medical evidence or the chemical analysis report, a thorough review of the prosecutrix's testimony becomes necessary. 12. In the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443, in which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants, the concept expressed by the Supreme Court regarding the assessment of the credibility of the statement of the sole prosecutrix is as follows:- “5.5 With 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?” “6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per 10 the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall accused came inside and thereafter the accused committed rape. She has stated that she identified the accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. Even nothing is on record that there was a broken compound wall. She has further stated that in the morning at 10 O’clock she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However, according to the investigating officer a written complaint was given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the prosecutrix has referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW1 and others. However, Shanti Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5-prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. There is a delay in the FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect to land. The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the solitary version of the prosecutrix-PW5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.” 13. The prosecutrix (PW-1) supported the sequence of events of rape in her Court statement, but she also admitted during cross-examination that her aunt Ratna and another aunt had accompanied her. The fair ground is usually crowded with 10-15 thousand people from the 11 surrounding area, and electricity, police, and panchayat representatives are present to ensure security arrangements. She had filed written reports at the police station three times. The first report (Exhibit P-1) was filed by the prosecutrix (PW-1) on 11.10.2011 at the police station with her father. The second written report dated 12.10.2011 (Exhibit P-2) was filed at the police station with her friend (PW-2), Pawan Singh Rathia, Neer Singh Rathia, and Thakur Singh Rathia, and the third report (Exhibit P-3) was allegedly submitted later on 18.10.2011. It is noteworthy that there are significant contradictions between these three written complaints, the prosecutrix’s (PW-1) court statement, her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exhibit P- 26), and the statements of other witnesses examined by the prosecution. The time of the incident is mentioned as 2:00 AM in some places, 3:00 AM in others, and 4:00 AM in yet others. In some instances, the prosecutrix is said to have gone to the open field for defecation, while in others, she is said to have gone to wash her hands and feet at a hand pump. In some reports, she is said to have been chewing tobacco with Shatrughan and Ramdhan, while in others, she is said to have been forcibly carried away and molested. In some reports, it is stated that Tarachand raped her and 12 she became unconscious, while these facts are omitted in other reports. Similarly, the prosecutrix stated that her clothes were torn and she was stripped naked, but the facts of her clothes being torn and her being stripped naked are omitted in some reports. In some places, it is stated that the prosecutrix was threatened with death if she tells anyone about the incident, while in other places, these facts are omitted. The prosecutrix herself admitted during cross- examination that she did not mention the tearing of her clothes by the four accused in her initial complaint (Exhibit P-1). She also admitted that she did not mention the rape incident in the written complaint (Exhibit P-1). She further admitted that she did not tell Ramdhan and Shatrughan anything about the incident. She admitted that she did not go to defecation on the night of the incident. She also stated that after the incident, when she returned home, her aunt and uncle were there, and Ramdhan and Shatrughan had dropped them off on the way. No satisfactory explanation has been given for the four-day delay in reporting the incident, despite so many people being present and aware of it. Furthermore, the written complaints subsequently filed are more than one, totaling three, and contain serious contradictions and omissions. The prosecutrix’s statement is not supported by medical or chemical examination. 13 According to the prosecution case, prosecutrix’s aunt, uncle, Shatrughan, and Ramdhan were aware of the incident, but none of them were examined in Court. 14. In light of the aforementioned circumstances and legal precedents, the prosecutrix (PW-1) statement is not found to be credible beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction of the accused/appellants is not justified in the eyes of law and cannot be upheld. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is Allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside, and they are acquitted of the charged offences. 16. The appellants are on bail. They are not required to surrender. However, their bail bonds will remain in effect for six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court forthwith, for information and necessary action, if any. D Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Shubham