1 2026:CGHC:9581 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 05-12-2025 24-02-2026 - 24-02-2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 05-12-2025 Judgment delivered on : 24-02-2026 CRA No. 1098 of 2008 Jagmohan Kurre S/o Resham Lal Kurre, aged about 20 years, R/o Chhote Gumda, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh CG ... Respondent For Appellant : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J CAV Judgment The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Raigarh in ST No.17/2008 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 457 of Indian Penal Code. RI for three years Under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. RI for seven years, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 03 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.11.2007 the prosecutrix (PW-1) was all alone in her house as her husband had gone out to the field for getting paddy and did not return till 12 at night. At 12.30 am she was having dinner at the courtyard, at that time the accused Jagmohan Kurre scaling the wall reached the courtyard, caught hold of her, gagged her mouth and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. He was also having a knife with him. After this incident, he ran way threatening her. As the tractor of her husband got stuck in the culvert, he returned next day at 7 am and then she narrated the whole incident to him. Thereafter on 1.12.2007 she went with her husband to police station and lodged a report against the 3 accused. After lodging report when she returned her house, accused Resham Lal, father of accused Jagmohan, abused her filthily saying that she lodged a false report against his son. During the course of investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was done, her petticoat was seized, broken pieces of her bangles were seized from the spot, her vaginal slides were prepared and seized; a knife was seized from the accused Jagmohan and his medical examination was also done. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After completing usual formalities of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 456, 376, 506B, 294/34 of IPC was filed against the accused persons. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 457 & 376 of IPC against accused Jagmohan whereas accused Resham Lal Kurre was charged under Section 294 of IPC only. They abjured the charges and prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined two witnesses. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court 4 while acquitting accused Resham Lal Kurre of the charge under Section 294 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that as many as five children of the prosecutrix were present in the house at the time of alleged incident, not even a single struggle mark was found on her body and no neighbour heard the commotion or noticed the alleged act of the accused/appellant. It has come in evidence that on the date of incident the husband of the prosecutrix had beaten the appellant due to some land related dispute going on between them. The evidence of the prosecutrix is also not supported by the medical evidence. Thus, looking to the oral and documentary evidence and conduct of the prosecutrix, the learned trial Court was not justified in holding the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offence. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raju and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133 and judgment dated 8.9.2025 of this Court in CRA No.737/2005 in the matter of Khokshi @ Somnath Vs. State of CG. 5 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposing the contention of the appellant would submit that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the accused/appellant was charged under Sections 457 and 376 of IPC and co-accused Reshamlal Kurre was charged under Section 294 of IPC, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting co-accused Reshamlal Kurre of the charge u/s 294 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 09. PW-1 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident at around 12 in the night she was sitting in the courtyard awaiting her husband who had gone out to bring paddy but could not return as his tractor got stuck in the culvert. Her children had slept. At that time, the accused/appellant scaling the wall reached the courtyard, she was having her meal, he caught hold of her hand and thereafter committed rape upon her. He also threatened to kill her if she disclosed the 6 incident to anyone. After the incident the accused/appellant fled from the spot. Next day when her husband returned at 6 am, she narrated the incident to him and then at 8 am they went to police station and lodged report Ex.P/1. In cross-examination she admits that the accused/appellant is son of her brother-in-law (Jeth) Reshamlal. She also admits that she is not married to her husband and he has kept her without marriage. She admits in para 6 that it is she who informed her husband about illicit relation of his first wife Ambi with Purushottam and on that ground she was ousted from the house. She admits that the accused/appellant calls her aunt (Chachi). She admits that at the time of incident she did not raise cry and that after departure of the appellant, she did not tell about the incident to anyone. She did not even wake up Dharampal and also did not call out anyone. She did not bite or scratch the accused/appellant but only slept him. She admits that her husband has mobile phone and there is also telephone at her house and that she tried to make contact with her husband over phone many times but failed. She denies the suggestion that due to some old land dispute, a false report has been lodged against the accused. 10. PW-2 husband of the prosecutrix states that accused Jagmohan is his nephew, at around 10.30 pm the accused came near his tractor and remained there for about an hour but did not help in taking out the tractor and at around 11.30 pm he moved away from there. He states 7 that throughout the night he was busy in taking out the tractor from the culvert and succeeded at 5 am and thereafter he reached the house at 6 am. Upon reaching the house, his wife informed him that the accused Jagmohan committed rape upon her. In cross-examination he admits that once he had hot talk with Manmohan, who is son of accused Reshamlal, and he lodged report against him (PW-2). He states that he too lodged report against Reshamlal and Manmohan but later on compromise took place. He admits that on the date of incident his son Dharampal was at the house, he (PW-2) was having mobile and there is telephone at the house. He denies the suggestion that due to old enmity a false report has been lodged against the accused persons. 11. PW-3 Kanhaiya Lal, PW-4 Premanand and PW-5 Sunderlal state that next day the prosecutrix told them about the incident that it is the accused/appellant Jagmohan who committed rape upon her. In their cross-examination they admit that there is previous enmity between the family of the accused and that of the prosecutrix. 12. PW-6 Natthuram states that on the date of incident both the accused Jagmohan and Reshamlal were filthily abusing Sunder and threatening. He persuaded the accused persons, upon which they went away from there. 8 13. PW-9 Dr. Smt. Nancy Lakda examined the prosecutrix but did not notice any internal or external injury on her body. She prepared vaginal slide and sent it for chemical examination. Her report is Ex.P/12. As per FSL report Ex.P/20, semen was found in the vaginal slide and clothes of the prosecutrix. 14. DW-1 Shivlal states that there is dispute between the accused persons and husband of the prosecutrix for the last four years and on the date of incident, there was fight between them over land dispute. DW-2 Jayram states that husband of the prosecutrix had ousted Reshamlal from the house 8-10 years ago after quarreling and he implicated the accused persons due to land dispute. 15. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the prosecutrix and witnesses admitted the fact that there is previous enmity between both the families. At the time of incident, the prosecutrix did not raise alarm to attract attention of the people living in the vicinity. It is also an admitted position in this case that immediately after the incident she did not inform her husband about the act of the accused/appellant over telephone. This conduct of the prosecutrix raises serous doubt on the prosecution case. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raju and others (supra), held in paras 9 to 12 of its judgment as under: 9 “9. The observations in Gurmit Singh case were reiterated in Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam in the following terms: (Gurmit Singh case, SCC pp. 395-96, para 8) "8.... The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. (emphasis supplied) Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a 10 condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable." (emphasis in original) 10. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the court. 11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual 11 assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. 12. Reference has been made in Gurmit Singh case to the amendments in 1983 to Sections 375 and 376 of the Penal Code making the penal provisions relating to rape more stringent, and also to Section 114-A of the Evidence Act with respect to a presumption to be raised with regard to allegations of consensual sex in a case of alleged rape. It is however significant that Sections 113-A and 113-B too were inserted in the Evidence Act by the same amendment by which certain presumptions in cases of abetment of suicide and dowry death have been raised against the accused. These two sections, thus, raise a clear presumption in favour of the prosecution but no similar presumption with respect to rape is visualised as the presumption under Section 114-A is extremely restricted in its applicability. This clearly shows that insofar as allegations of rape are concerned, the evidence of a prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as the gospel truth. Additionally, her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a person falsely. We believe that it is under these principles that this case, and others such as this one, need to be examined.” 17. In the present case, looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto, her evidence does not inspire confidence. This apart, in view of admitted fact as to 12 previous enmity between the parties, the possibility of false implication of the accused/appellant in the crime in question cannot be ruled out in toto. The medical evidence lends no support to the version of the prosecutrix. PW-9 Dr. Smt. Nancy Lakda who examined the prosecutrix on 1.12.2007 noticed no external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix. As per FSL report (Ex.P/20), though semen was found in the clothes and vaginal slide of the prosecutrix but there is no serological report as the semen found on the clothese of the prosecutrix were not sufficient for such examination. More so, the prosecutrix is a married lady. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident is said to have occurred, the conduct of the prosecutrix coupled with the medical evidence and the fact that there is long-standing land dispute between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he deserves to be acquitted of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 457 & 376 of IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of these charges by giving him benefit of doubt. 13 19. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 he is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, he shall on receipt of notice thereon appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.02.24 16:13:57 +0530