1 2025:CGHC:48758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 269 of 2022 Manharan Rathore S/o Ramcharan Rathore Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Mahka, Police Chowki Kharsiya, Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 23/09/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.9.2021 passed by Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act], Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (hereinafter referred as ‘Special Judge’) in Special Criminal Case under the Atrocities Act/15/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Sl. No. Conviction U/s. Jail sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 376(2)(n) of IPC RI for 10 years Rs.5000/- RI for six months BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.26 16:43:41 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim/prosecutrix and the appellant are the residents of same village namely Gopimahaka. Due to financial problems, in the year 2019, the victim borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the appellant/accused, thereafter under pressure, the appellant/accused sexually exploited the victim first time on 05.7.2019 and thereafter both of them were in physical relationship till 25.02.2020. Ultimately, aforesaid fact was revealed to the husband of the victim, as love communication sent by the appellant to the victim was seen by her husband. Thereafter written complaint (Ex-P/1) was made by the complainant alleging therein that the appellant under threat on various counts sexually exploited her from 05.7.2019 to 25.02.2020. Based on written complaint, FIR (Ex-P/2) was lodged in Police Station Kharsiya against the appellant. Statement of the witnesses were recorded, spot map (Ex-P/3) was prepared, victim was medically examined by Dr. Preeti Ijardar (PW-3) and vide MLC report (Ex-P/9) she opined that no external and internal injuries were seen on the person or in the private part of the victim and she is habitual for sexual intercourse. Statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate vide Ex- P/6. Readme mobile set of the appellant was seized vide Ex-P/10, he was arrested vide seizure memo P/11. The appellant was also got medically examined by Dr. Shishir V. Rathore and vide MLC report (Ex-P/18), he opined that the appellant is physically fit with H/o. Epilepsy & Right thigh amputation and also there is no such evidence present that he cannot perform sexual intercourse. Since the victim belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, her caste certificate (Ex-P/5) was also seized vide Ex-P/4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(1) ब (1), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act 1989’) was filed against 3 the appellant before the Special Judge. 3. The learned special Judge framed charges under Section 376(2) (k)(n) of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act 1989, against the appellant/accused who denied the charges and claimed for trial. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. Statement of the appellant/accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence. No witnesses have been examined by the appellant/accused. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide its judgment dated 14.9.2021, finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC instead of Section 376 (2)(k)(n) IPC, as mentioned in the opening paragraph, against which this appeal has been filed by him. However, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the victim and the appellants are residents of same village and it is a case of love affair. They were in consensual relationship between 05.7.2019 to 25.02.2020, but FIR was lodged because it was revealed to the husband of the victim. He further submits that FIR has been lodged on 10.02.2021 on the basis of written complaint (Ex-P/1) dated 09.02.2021. Thus, even after last date of the incident as has been mentioned in the FIR, it was lodged after about one year. Learned counsel further submits that medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. There is no other direct evidence against the appellant, despite that the learned trial Court has convicted him 4 only on the basis of sole evidence of the victim/prosecutrix, who herself has indulged in physical relationship with the appellant/accused. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the victim/prosecutrix has clearly denied that she was in love affair with the appellant, rather she has specifically deposed that the appellant had sexually exploited her for long period, because she had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from him. She has further deposed that the appellant had made a video of their relationship and was exploiting her by threatening to make it viral. She further submits that though the medical report is not supporting the case of the prosecution, but it is settled law that if the statement of the victim is impeccable, then conviction of the appellant can based only on the sole evidence of the victim. She further submits that the impugned judgment is based on well appreciation of the evidence, hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record. 8. PW-1 is victim and she has deposed that since 2015 she was residing along with her husband and children at village Gopimahaka, where the appellant was also residing. The appellant used to sit in the betel shop situated in front of rented house of the victim and some time the appellant asked for water due to which, she came in contact with the appellant in the year 2018. Thereafter she had given mobile number to the appellant and they used to talk with each other. In the year 2019 when financial condition of the victim deteriorated, she borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the appellant. Later 5 on the appellant pressurized her saying that if she would make physical relation ship with him, then he will not demand the money back. Therefore, first time on 05.7.2019 she had physical relation with the appellant, which was recorded by him and thereafter the appellant sexually exploited the victim repeatedly by threatening to make the video viral. She has further deposed that her husband saw the message sent by the appellant/accused thereafter the incident was revealed to her husband and report was lodged. 9. Santram Siadar (PW-2) is husband of the victim and he is hearsay witness, to whom the victim had told about the long sexual exploitation by the appellant under threat. Except aforesaid two witnesses, no other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the material facts of the incident. Other witnesses are procedural witnesses. As per the victim, she had physical relationship with the appellant since 05.7.2019. Though she has stated that their relationship was made by the appellant under threat and pressure, but she herself in her cross-examination in para 13 deposed that between 2019 to 2020 she never told her husband about said physical relationship. She has also admitted in para 12 that the appellant is handicapped person and if he try to force physical relation with her and if she push him then he would fall. Aforesaid acceptance of the victim and long relationship between them show that their relationship was not under threat or misconception of facts, rather it was consensual. The victim would have made complaint to her husband and she would also prevent herself by applying force against the appellant, but she did not do any such act and indulged in physical relationship with the appellant. 10. As per the case of the prosecution, there was a betel shop in front of rented house of the victim. Such shop was frequented by many people, therefore, neither that persons nor any other witnesses who could 6 have revealed the facts with regard to offence of rape, was examined. 11. Dr. Preeti Ijardar (PW-3), who examined the victim, has stated that no any symptoms of forceful sexual intercourse has been found upon the victim, no external or internal injury on the private part of the victim was present. Thus, medical report is not supportive to the evidence of rape levelled against the appellant. Other witnesses are formal witnesses. 12. In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that thought the victim’s solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix’s testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held as under:- "31. 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. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences. 32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by 7 the public prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant." 13. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nirmal Premkumar Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC Online SC 260, while reiterating the aforesaid dictum has held in para 15 as under:- “15. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a "sterling witness" without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution's case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.” 14. Applying the law as has been held by the Apex Court, if the instant case is examined that the victim had long physical relation for about 7- 8 months and she herself has admitted that she never told about the alleged incident of rape (if it would have committed forcefully) to her husband from 2018 to 2020, even it is also revealed from her deposition that she never resisted the appellant while performing such act, whereas because of the physical disability of the appellant, the victim could have very much control him as she herself has stated that upon pushing him, the appellant would fall. Thus, the victim’s solitary statement is not found reliable to convict the appellant for the alleged offence. Medical evidence is also not supportive to 8 the case of the prosecution. There is no other evidence to hold the appellant guilty for the said offence. 15. In view of the above, this court is inclined to deem the case in hand unsuitable for upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, as no adequate evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to hold him guilty for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 16. Consequently, conviction of the appellant under Section376(2)(n) IPC is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. 18. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini