1 2025:CGHC:35434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1613 of 2016 1 - Deepkesh Prajapati S/o Shri Pradeep Prajapati, Aged About 29 Years R/o Ramanujganj, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Special SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.07.25 12:31:59 +0530 2 Judge, (Atrocities) Surguja, District Ambikapur (C.G.) in Special Session Case No. /Central Registration No. 23/2014, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376(1) of IPC & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs. 2,500/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 02/04/2014, the Prosecutrix (PW1) lodged an report alleging therein that the accused had been committing physical exploitation by making corporeal relation with her on the pretext of marriage for 3 years. On several occasions, the accused was asked to make marriage with the prosecutrix, but he refused to do so. 3. On the basis of the said report, the FIR has been registered by the Police Station Ramanujganj District Balrampur against the appellant. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 before the concerned Court. 4. Thereafter, the charges under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and 3 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 were framed against the appellant/accused. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No defence witness was examined by the accused/appellant. 6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has acquitted the accused/appellant from the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 and convicted him under Section 376(1) of the IPC as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 7. The learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja (Ambikapur) C.G. has acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, but at the same time has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. 4 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are major contradictions and omission in the statement of the the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that there are substantial developments in the prosecution witnesses’ court statements. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the fact and evidence in its proper perspective and gave wrong and perverse finding. The statement of the complainant itself goes to show that she had been developing corporeal relation with the accused/appellant without any force or coercion as such, she was the consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. The ingredients of Section 376 IPC are completely missing in the case, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused/appellant deserves to be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. 9. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the learned Special Judge minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the accused/appellant and there is no infirmity in the same. 5 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The question which arises for consideration by this Court is whether the accused/appellant had committed rape with prosecutrix or the prosecutrix was the consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant?; whether reliance on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) should be placed or not? and whether corroboration is essential in rape cases before convicting an accused person? 12. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar V. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 77 : 2020 SCC Online SC 194 in para 5.4.3 and 5.5 which read thus :- "5.4.3 In Krishan Kumar Malik V. State of Haryana, it is observed and held by this court that no doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 6 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?" 13. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that she had come to Silfili and Ambikapur for the recruitment of Nagar Sainik, where she met the accused/appellant. She stated that in the year 2011 both the accused and prosecutrix were recruited as Nagar Sainik, thereafter she was posted in Ramanujganj, a love affair had been developed between them. She deposed that for three years, the accused was making corporeal relationship with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage, however , he declined to marry her. She further deposed that from the year 2011 till the time she lodged the report in the year 2014, the accused had made physical relations with her several times. She further deposed that she told the above incident to her parents and lodged the FIR against the accused/appellant. 7 14. In Cross-examination at para 11 she has admitted the fact that two-three months prior to FIR , she had told her parents about their love affairs and she on her own stated that her parents knew about the relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused appellant. She further admit that due to mutual love relationship with the accused, she had corporeal relationship with him of her own free will. At last she admitted the fact that initially when the accused had corporeal relations with her, he did not assure her of marriage. 15. (PW-2), mother of the victim, has stated in her cross examination that prosecutrix had told her about love affairs between her and the accused/appellant two days prior to report. 16. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire full confidence of the Court. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis of the evidence of Prosecutrix (PW/1), mother (PW/2) what emerges is that the prosecutrix (PW1), who is a major grown lady, was in love affair with the accused/appellant; and she 8 had corporeal relation with the accused/appellant on number of occasions, which shows that she was consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. The testimony of Prosecutrix (PW/1) does not inspires full confidence of this Court regaring the allegations of rape and the same cannot be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant. 17. As discussed above with regard to the truthfulness of the evidence of the victim (PW-1), when examined by the medical evidence of (PW-4) Dr. Snehlata Tirkey and medical report (Ex. P/16), it shows that there is no external and internal injury over the body of the victim, which could lead to the conclusion that the victim was raped forcefully and while examining the victim it is found that hymen membrane to be old and she is found to be habitual in sexual intercourse. 18. In view of foregoing, this Court does not find the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) to be natural and truthful & the same is not sufficient to hold the accused/appellant guilty. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of course has to go to the appellant. 9 19. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused/appellant Deepkesh Prajapati is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Atrocities), Surguja, District Ambikapur (C.G.) is set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him extending benefit of doubt. 20. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS. 21. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib