1 2026:CGHC:2144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 223 of 2005 Hemant Kumar Verma, aged about 27 years, S/o Shri Reva Ram Verma, R/o Village Dhaba, Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Ghumka, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent. For Appellant : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 14/01/2026 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity the ‘CrPC’) is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2005 passed by the learned First Upper Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as the 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No.129/2004, whereby learned trial Court after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.01.16 13:15:24 +0530 2 Sr No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 1 376 of the Indian Penal Code. RI for 8 years Rs.5000/- RI for 1 year 2 506(Part-2) of the Indian Penal Code. RI for 2 years Rs.1000/- RI for 3 months 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 01.05.2004 the victim (PW-6), her husband LR (PW-5) along with two minor children aged about 2 years and one month, respectively, and sister-in-law of the victim were going to maternal house of the victim at Village Bundelikala by bus. After getting off the bus at Bilhari, husband of the victim started searching for bicycle to reach at Bundelikala. At the moment, the present appellant, who belongs to the same village, met them and told to drop victim, her children and sister-in-law to their village on his motorcycle. Thereafter, they sat on the appellant's motorcycle and the appellant proceeded. Appellant firstly dropped sister-in-law of the victim at Village Daragaon and after dropping her, he proceeded towards Village Bundelikala to drop the victim, however even after reaching there, he did not stop the motorcycle and directly went towards Village Domhatola. When the victim objected to the act of the appellant, the appellant returned from Domhatola, however, in between Domhatola and Bundelikala, he took the victim to the roadside and committed rape with her and also threatened to kill her children. Thereafter, the appellant dropped the victim and her children at Village Bundelikala. After arriving home, the victim narrated entire incident to her husband. Thereafter, the victim has lodged an FIR (Ex.P-11) against the appellant at Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon for the offence under Sections 376 and 3 506B of the IPC. 3. During the course of investigation, the victim was medically examined by Dr. Smt. SK (PW-1) and during medical examination vide MLC report (Ex.P-1) dated 03.05.2004, she did not find any injury on the person of the victim, hence, she could not opine whether rape was committed with her or not. However, she prepared two vaginal slides of the victim along with sample of pubic hair and handed over the same to the concerned police station for FSL examination. On the same day i.e. 03.05.2004, the appellant/accused was also medically examined by Dr. SKB (PW-2), who opined vide MLC report (Ex. P-3) that the report of appellant is positive. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC were recorded. Spot maps vide Ex.P-5 & Ex. P-6 were prepared by the concerned Police and Patwari, respectively. Underwear of the appellant was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-8. Vaginal slide, pubic hair and underwear of the victim were seized vide Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10, respectively. The seized underwear of the victim and appellant, along with the vaginal slide and pubic hair, were sent to FSL, Raipur for examination. FSL report has been received and filed as Ex.P-13, in which in the articles of the victim and appellant viz. underwear of the victim and appellant (Article 'A' and 'B') and vaginal slide of the victim (Article 'C'), sperm and human spermatozoa have been found. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 506B of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon. Subsequently, it was transferred for trial to the First Upper Sessions 4 Judge, Rajnandgaon who conducted the trial. 5. Learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 376 and 506 (Part 2) of the IPC against the appellant, who abjured his guilt and entered into trial. 6. So as to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. Statement of the appellant/accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution’s evidence claiming himself to be innocent and false implication. However, the appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. 7. After considering the evidence brought by the prosecution, learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 8. Mr. Shantam Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution case and evidence of the victim (PW-6), initially the appellant took the victim on his motorcycle from Village Bilhari and thereafter he took her from Village Bundelikala to Domhatola and crossed the residential area of both villages. He submits that, as per statement of the victim, rape was committed between the two villages and she might have screamed for her protection, however, this fact is completely unreliable because had she screamed, her cries would likely to have been heard by residents of the said village. He further submits the victim (PW-6) stated in the cross-examination of her deposition that the appellant dragged her 25-30 cubits (about 30-40 ft.), due to which, 5 she sustained injuries, however, during the medical examination of the victim no external or internal injuries were found, therefore, the medical report (Ex.P-1) does not support the victim’s statement regarding injuries. He argues that though the FSL report (Ex.P-13) was found positive but victim and appellant both are married persons and apart from that there is delay on the part of the prosecution as vaginal slide, pubic hair and undergarments of the appellant and victim were seized after two days of incident i.e. on 03.05.2004, therefore, in absence of any corroborative material evidence only on the basis of deposition of the victim which is highly improbable, the FSL report cannot be relied upon and the appellant cannot be held guilty of the offence of rape. He submits that learned trial Court without considering the aforesaid evidence, in a mechanical manner, convicted and sentenced the appellant, which is completely perverse to the evidence available on record. Hence, he prays that this appeal may be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the said charge. 9. Per Contra, Mrs. Prabha Sharma, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and as such this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 11. From perusal of deposition of the victim (PW-6) and her husband (PW- 5), it is undisputedly proved that on the date of incident i.e. 01.05.2004, they were going to Village Bundelikala with their two 6 minor children and sister-in-law of the victim (sister-in-law was not examined by the prosecution during trial). After getting down from the bus at Village Bilhari, the appellant met them and told them to drop to their village and thereafter victim, her children and sister-in-law sat on the motorcycle of the appellant and ahead towards their village. Though it is stated by the victim that appellant has firstly dropped her sister-in- law at Village Daragaon, but this fact has not been proved by the prosecution as her sister-in-law has not been examined and no other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution in this regard. Further, victim (PW-6) in her deposition stated that even after reaching at Village Bundelikala the appellant did not stop his motorcycle, rather he took her between Village Domhatola and Bundelikala and near roadside he committed rape with the victim on the point of knife and also threatened to kill her children. 12. After analysing the evidence of victim (PW-6), it appears that the accused had taken the victim through two villages as in Para 8 of the deposition, the victim herself stated that on both sides of the road there were residential houses. Although victim has stated that she screamed to protect herself, but such statement of victim cannot be relied upon as the location through which they passed was the residential area of the villages and any scream would likely have been heard by residents of the said village. However, no evidence to prove such fact has been adduced by the prosecution. 13. As regards injuries, victim (PW-6) in her cross-examination stated that appellant dragged her more than 30-40 ft. from the road of agricultural field. She has also stated that she tried to release from the clutches of 7 the accused, due to which, her bangles were broken and she sustained various abrasions on her both legs. She further stated that since the appellant had thrown her in agricultural field of the said village, she sustained injuries on her hip and said injury was improved after fomentation/massage. However, medical examination of the victim (Ex.P-1) conducted on 03.05.2004 by Dr. Smt. SK (PW-1) does not support the statement regarding aforesaid injuries sustained by the victim as she has stated that she did not found any injury on the person of the victim. Doctor (PW-1) specifically stated in her cross-examination at Para 2 that she did not find any symptom of violence on the person of the victim and no sign of forceful sexual intercourse was present on the person of the victim. 14. Apart from the above, though report of medical examination of the appellant (Ex.P-3) by Dr. SKB (PW-2) was found positive, however, said report cannot be relied upon as doctor (PW-2) himself admitted in his cross-examination that spot of semen can be present in clothes of married person after sexual intercourse. 15. Husband of the victim (PW-5) supported the evidence of the victim (PW-1) on the basis of information given by her to him that appellant had committed rape with her between villages Domhatola and Bundelikala and threatened to kill her children also. However, husband of the victim has not stated anything about the injuries which alleged to have sustained by the victim. He has also not stated that he has seen injury on the person of the victim, whereas had the victim sustained any injury, it would definitely have been seen by her husband. 16. The prosecution has relied upon FSL report (Ex.P-13) in which articles 8 of the appellant and victim were examined. Though in the FSL report (Ex. P-13), sperm and human spermatozoa have been reported to be found in the articles of the victim and appellant viz. undergarments of the victim and appellant (Article 'A' and 'B') and vaginal slide of the victim (Article 'C'), however, victim and appellant both are married persons and said articles were seized after two days of the incident i.e. on 03.05.2004, therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty on the basis of such FSL report. Thus, to substantiate the charge against the appellant, except the victim, there is no other material evidence on record. 17. In the case of Raju Vs. State of MP { (2008) 15 SCC 133} , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that 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 relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "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 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." 9 18. In the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana {(2011) 7 SCC 130}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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. 19. Further, in the case of Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2012) 8 SCC 21], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider as to who can be said to be a “sterling witness”. In Para 22, it is observed and held as under: “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to 10 the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 20. Keeping in view the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if evidence and facts of the present case are considered, then this Court finds that except deposition of victim (PW-6), there is no reliable evidence to support her statement. Medical report, as discussed above, has also not supported the version of the victim. Even after considering cross-examination of the victim in the preceding paragraphs, her statement is found to be highly improbable. Further, if any forceful physical relation would have been made with any victim by a person, then the victim would have made some effort to protect herself by applying force upon the person and in such situation, she would have sustained at least some visible injury, however in the present case doctor (PW-1), who examined the victim and prepared the MLC report (Ex.P- 1), has clearly stated that she has not seen any injury on the body of the victim and furthermore after the incident the victim reached her house with children and scolded by her husband, subsequent to which, FIR 11 was lodged next day on 02.05.2004. In this view of the matter, if any physical relation between victim and appellant was made, then possibility of consent cannot be ruled out. 21. Having considered the aforesaid facts in the light of aforecited principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court reaches to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to hold guilty the appellant for the offence under Section 376 and 506 (Part-2) of the IPC and thus judgment of conviction of the appellant is perverse to the evidence on record, hence, it is not found to be sustainable. 22. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the impugned judgment under Section 376 and 506 (Part-2) of the IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. 23. The appellant is reported to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 24. Record of the concerned trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for necessary information and compliance, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay