1 2026:CGHC:2166-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1495 of 2025 1 - Ramadhar Baghel S/o Battu Lal Baghel Aged About 38 Years R/o Telikot, Police Station Kharsia, District- Raigarh (C.G.) (Accused No. 2) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Officer Police Police Station Dabhara, District - Sakti (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 534 of 2018 1 - Rajesh Khunte (Wrongly Mentioned As Rajesh Khonte) S/o Rikhiram Aged About 46 Years R/o Aurda, Police Station Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1508 of 2025 1 - Ravi Baghel S/o Gayaram Baghel, Aged About 35 Years R/o Talikot, P.S. - Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ---Appellant(s) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 17:01:20 +0530 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Dandi, Advocate in CRA No. 1495/2025. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate in CRA No. 534/2018. Ms. Vidhi Maltani, Advocate in CRA No. 1508/2025. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate. For Complainant/Objector : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 14/01/2026 1. All three criminal appeals arise out of the same crime number and the same incident; therefore, they are being heard and decided together, although the Sessions Trial numbers are different. 2. The Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2018, filed by the appellant/accused Rajesh Khunte, against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12-03-2018, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, in Sessions Case No. 98 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- 3 Conviction Sentence U/s 365 of Indian Penal Code RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine 06 months additional RI U/s 366 of IPC RI for 05 years and fine fo Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine 06 months additional RI U/s 328 of IPC RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine 06 months additional RI U/s 376 (d) of IPC RI for 20 years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine 06 months additional RI 3. The Criminal Appeal No. 1495 of 2025, filed by the appellant/accused Ramadhar Baghel, against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14-07-2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s 365 of the IPC RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine additional RI for 02 month. U/s 366 of the IPC RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine additional RI for 02 month. U/s 328/34 of the IPC RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine additional RI for 02 month. 4 U/s 376 (D) of the IPC RI for 20 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine additional RI for 06 month. All sentences run concurrently. 4. The Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2025, filed by the appellant/accused Ravi Baghel, against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14-07-2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s 365 of IPC RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine 02 months additional RI U/s 366 of IPC RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine 02 months additional RI U/s 328/34 of IPC RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine 02 months additional RI U/s 376 (d) of IPC RI for 20 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment 06 months additional RI 5. In all these appeals, the date of the incident is between 05-12- 2013 and 07-12-2013, and the allegation against the accused persons/appellants is that they committed gang rape upon the victim P.W. 1. The appellant/accused Rajesh Khunte was arrested on 26-03-2014, and he faced trial in Sessions Case No. 98 of 5 2014, which was decided on 12-03-2018. The two other co- accused persons/appellants, Ramadhar Baghel and Ravi Baghel, were arrested on 24-07-2014 and 13-01-2015, respectively, and a supplementary charge sheet has been filed against them on 29- 07-2021, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, and Sessions Case No. 38 of 2021 was registered, and they faced trial in Sessions Case No. 38/2021, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, which was decided on 14-07-2025. Sessions Case No. 98 of 2014 6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim, P.W. 1, on 05-12-2013, when she was waiting for the bus at Bus Stand, Kanhakot and her father had gone back to his house due to his ailment, the accused persons/appellants came there in their Marshal Jeep. They asked her to accompany them up to the village of Jamjhor, and despite her refusal, they took her with them in the Jeep. On the way, they gave her divine grace (Prasad). When she ate it, she went unconscious, and when she regained consciousness, she found herself in a room, and her hands and legs were tied with a rope. After having her meals, she again went unconscious. On 07-12-2013, she felt that she was subjected to rape by all three accused persons, then she ran away from the place and informed her husband through the mobile phone of a passerby, and then she came to the police 6 station and lodged the report. On the report of the victim, the un- numbered FIR Ex. P-1 (Sessions Case No. 98 of 2014) and Ex. P-1 (C) (Sessions Case No. 38 of 2021) was registered at police station Balco, District Korba, against the accused persons/appellants, for the offence under Sections 365, 366, 376(2)(g) of the IPC. 7. Before that, on 06-12-2013, a missing report, Ex. P-6 was lodged by the victim's father at the police station Dabhra, with the effect that his daughter is missing from the Bus Stand, Kanhakot, since 05-12-2013. 8. The victim was sent for her medical examination to the District Hospital, Korba, where she was medically examined by Dr. K. L. Sonkar, P.W. 10, who gave her report Ex. P-8. During her medical examination, the doctor did not notice any external or internal injuries on her body and opined that no definite opinion can be given about rape. Two vaginal slides have been prepared, sealed and handed over to the police for FSL examination. The clothes of the victim were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-3. The FIR was transferred to the jurisdictional police station Dabhra, where the numbered FIR Ex. P-12 was registered. Spot map Ex. P-4 was prepared by the police and Ex. P-5 was prepared by the Patwari. The appellant Rajesh Khunte was arrested on 26-03- 2014, and he too was sent for his medical examination to the Community Health Centre, Dabhra. He was medically examined by Dr. Padma Lochan Patel, P.W. 6, and gave his report Ex. P-11. 7 During his medical examination, the doctor did not find any external injuries and opined that he is able to do sexual intercourse. Two semen slides were prepared and handed over to the police for FSL examination. The clothes of the victim, vaginal slides and the semen slides of the accused Rajesh Khunte were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Raipur, from where the FSL report Ex. P-17 was received. According to the FSL report, in the vaginal slide of the victim, her petticoat and semen slide of the accused Rajesh Khunte, semen and sperm were found present. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Rajesh Khunte, showing the investigation pending against the other two co-accused persons. 9. The learned trial court framed charge against the accused Rajesh Khunte, for the offence under Sections 365, 366, 328 read with Section 34 and 376 (2)(g) of the IPC. The appellant Rajesh Khunte, denied the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. The prosecution has examined the witnesses in the trial in the following manner:- P.W. 1 - Victim P.W. 2 - Rameshwar Prasad P.W. 3 - Panch Ram P.W. 4 - Umesh Kumar Patel, Patwari P.W. 5 - Husband of the victim P.W. 6 - Dr. P.L. Patel P.W. 7 - D.R. Yadav, Police Inspector 8 P.W. 8 - Umesh Mishra, Police Inspector P.W. 9 - Shuklal Anant, Police Inspector P.W. 10 - Dr. K.P. Sonkar P.W. 11 - Sheetal Sidar P.W. 12 - Krishna Kumar Verma, Sub Inspector of Police 10. Statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the appellant Rajesh Khunte has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appear against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. It is also submitted that the husband of the victim, namely Madan Dadsena, and two other co-accused persons Anil Khanna and Rakesh Khunte, have committed rape with his daughter, for which he lodged a report, and they are being prosecuted in the offence of gang rape, and after being released from jail, they lodged the report against him only to get the benefit of counter attack. 11. After appreciation of the evidence produced by the prosecution, vide its judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12-03-2018, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant Rajesh Khunte and sentenced him, as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, against which he filed the Cr.A. no. 534/2018. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. There are material omission and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, which cannot be the basis of a conviction of the appellant. The present FIR is only a counterblast to take revenge against the accused, as the daughter of the present appellant 9 Rajesh Khunte, was subjected to rape by Rakesh Khunte, Madanlal Dadsena and Anil Khanna. The present victim is the wife of Madanlal Dadsena, and she has been made instrumental. It is an afterthought, and a concocted story has been developed by the complainant party against the appellant. The manner in which the victim was alleged to have been kidnapped by the accused persons and kept in confinement is highly improbable. There is no injury found on the body of the victim, nor is there any sign of any protest on her body. The manner in which she was alleged to have been kept and molested, it would not be possible that she could have not received any injury. Her medical evidence is totally contrary to her evidence and allegation. She was allegedly taken from the Bus stand in the evening hours. The bus stand is a busy place, and it is not possible that the victim accompanied them without raising any alarm, and no one could notice her alarm. It is only when the appellant Rajesh Khunte refused to compromise in the case against the accused Madanlal, Anil, and Rakesh Khunte, a false story was framed. He would further submit that the co-accused Ramadhar Baghel is the counsel of the appellant Rajesh Khunte, and Ravi Baghel is the witness in the case against Rakesh, Anil and Madanlal. He would also submit that the victim is a married lady, and the presence of semen and sperm is her vaginal slide, and the clothes are quite normal and do not have significance in view of the other suspicious circumstances of the case. The victim could not be 10 qualified as a sterling witness, and her evidence is full of suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant Rajesh Khunte may be allowed, and he may be acquitted of the alleged offences. Sessions Case No. 38 of 2021 13. The unnumbered FIR for the offence under Sections 365, 366, 376(2)(g) of the IPC was already registered at police station Balco, District Korba, which was transferred to police station Dabhra, and a numbered FIR was registered there. The other co- accused persons (appellants in Cr.A. No. 1495/2025 and Cr.A. No. 1508/2025), Ramadhar Baghel and Ravi Baghel, were arrested on 24-07-2014 and 13-01-2015, respectively, by the Dabhra police. They were released on bail on 21-08-2014 and 20-01-2015, respectively, by the learned Sessions Court. The accused Ravi Baghel was sent for his medical examination to Community Health Centre, Dabhra, where he was medically examined by Dr. H. C. Patel, P.W. 6 and gave his report Ex. P-10. The accused Ramadhar Baghel was also sent for his medical examination to Community Health Centre, Dabhra, where he too was examined by Dr. H. C. Patel, P.W. 6, and gave his report Ex. P-11. Both these accused persons were found medically fit and able to do sexual intercourse. Semen slides of these accused persons were also prepared and handed over to the police for chemical examination. The FIR, MLC report of the victim, spot map, statements of the witnesses and other relevant documents 11 of the Crime No. 433/2013 registered at police station Dabhra, were also annexed with the supplementary charge sheet. As per the record, a supplementary Charge sheet was filed against them before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, on 29- 07-2021. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, and Sessions Case No. 38/2021 was registered. 14. The charges under Sections 365, 366,328/34 and 376-D of the IPC have been framed against these two accused persons/appellants, namely Ramadhar Baghel and Ravi Baghel, on 12-03-2024. They denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution again examined its witnesses in the following manner:- P.W. 1 - Victim P.W. 2 - Husband of the victim P.W. 3 - Hemant Chouhan, Head Constable P.W. 4 - Nawadha Singh Kanwar, Constable P.W. 5 - Umesh Kumar Patel, Patwari P.W. 6 - Dr. Harish Chand Patel P.W. 7 - Khamman Singh Jangde, Constable P.W. 8 - Suryakant Shukla, Head Constable P.W. 9 - Umesh Mishra, Dy. Supdt. of Police P.W. 10 - Dhannu Ram Yadav, Police Inspector P.W. 11 - Rameshwar Prasad Gabel P.W. 12 - Krishna Kumar Verma, Sub Inspector of Police P.W. 13 Dr. K. B. Sonkar P.W. 14 Anita Xess 15. The statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused persons has been recorded in which they denied the 12 circumstances that appear against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 16. The accused persons have examined themselves as defence witnesses. The accused Ramadhar Baghel has been examined as D.W. 1, and the accused Ravi Baghel has been examined as D.W. 2. The defence has also relied upon the documents Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-33. 17. After appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the accused persons Ramadhar Baghel and Ravi Baghel, vide its judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14-07-2025, which is under challenge in the present Cr.A. No. 1495/2025 and Cr.A. No. 1508/2025. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants would submit that the appellants Ramadhar Baghel and Ravi Baghel have been falsely implicated in the offence. Ramadhar Baghel is the counsel of the complainant in the case against Rakesh Khunte, Anil Khanna and Madanlal Dadsena, and the accused Ravi Baghel was the witness in that case. The accused Rajesh Khunte is the father of the victim in that case. It is only when the compromise was denied by Rajesh Khunte, they were roped into a false case. Although the appellants were arrested in the years 2014 and 2015, respectively, they were released on bail and for want of sufficient evidence against them, the supplementary charge sheet was not filed for about 6-7 years, and it was filed in the year 2021. They have no nexus with the alleged offence. The 13 evidence of the victim is self-contradictory, and there are exaggeration in her evidence with her statement made before the police. The conduct of the victim, the manner in which the incident is said to have occurred and the absence of injuries on her body make the prosecution’s case doubtful. They would rely on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant Rajesh Khunte and adopt the same. It is also submitted by him that from the documents Ex. D-1 to D-33, the defence of the accused persons have duly been proved that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. Therefore, they may be acquitted of the alleged offence, and their judgment of conviction and sentences may be set-aside. 19. On the other hand, opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective appellants in both the criminal appeals, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/state would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradictions, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reliable. The FIR has been lodged promptly, and the victim has duly supported her case. The evidence of the victim is not required to be corroborated from other evidence, and even if no injuries have been found on the body of the victim, it does not dilute the offence. 20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court of both the Sessions Case No. 98/2014 14 and 38/2021, with utmost circumspection and considered their rival submissions. 21. In both the session cases, the victim has been examined as P.W. 1. In Session Case No. 98/2014, she was examined on 09-02- 2015, and in Session Case No. 38/2021, she was examined on 05-04-2024. She stated in her evidence that on 05-12-2013, when she was returning to her matrimonial house and was waiting for a bus at Kanhakot bus stand, the accused persons came there by a Jeep and asked her to accompany them, and they would drop her at Jamjhor. She accompanied them, and on the way, they gave her the divine grace (prasad), and when she ate it, she went unconscious. At about 11.00 at night, she regained her consciousness and found herself in a room, and her limbs were tied. She had taken food, and thereafter, all the accused persons committed rape upon her. She again went unconscious and regained her consciousness on 06-12-2013 at about 6.00 am. They kept her in confinement throughout the day and night, and on the next day, they again committed rape upon her and fled away. Her clothes were torn, and her ornaments were missing. She met with a passerby and asked him to inform her husband. After 2-3 hours of informing her husband, he came, and then she lodged the report. In cross-examination, she admitted that the accused Rajesh Khunte has lodged a report against her husband Madanlal, Anil Khanna and Rakesh Khunte, and a case for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of 15 IPC is pending before the Raigarh Court, in which her husband was in jail. She further stated that she received injuries all over her body, which she disclosed to the police and doctor. The marks of tying her limbs were also there, and on the same day, when she lodged the report, she was medically examined. She has not given any nail scratch marks on the body of the accused, Rajesh Khunte. The place of the incident was disclosed to the police by her husband. She denied the suggestion given by the accused persons that she had not suffered any incident of rape. 22. When the victim, P.W. 1, was again examined on 05-04-2024 after the filing of the supplementary charge sheet against two co- accused persons, she stated in her examination-in-chief about the incident that she allegedly suffered. In cross-examination, she stated that she had seen the accused Ravi Baghel and Ramadhar Baghel for the first time on the date of the incident. She admitted that both are residents of the village Telikot. She also admitted that in the year 2011, the daughter of the accused Rajesh Khunte had lodged a report against her husband, for the offence of rape. In the said offence, her husband and other co- accused persons were in jail. She also admitted that her husband and other co-accused persons have been convicted of the said offence. She did not know whether her husband had tried to get the case compromised and put pressure upon the victim of that case or not. She further stated that she did not know that, due to the interference by accused Ramadhar, a compromise could not 16 be arrived at between the parties. She also did not know about the objection of the victim, prosecuted by the accused Ramadhar, the bail application of her husband was rejected. She further admitted that since 2011, the conversation between her and the accused persons had stopped. The fact that she had gone to her parents’ house in village Kanhakot was not knowledge of any other person except her husband. She admitted that there are a number of shops at the Bus Stand Kanhakot. At the time she came to the Bus Stand Kanhakot, many people were present there. She could not know the number of Marshal Jeep. She also admitted that she was not having any conversation with the persons who were inmates of the jeep. When she was asked about the strange relationship between them when she boarded the Jeep, she answered that they assured her that they would drop at her house; therefore, she boarded the Jeep. She could not remember whether she received any injuries on her limbs by tying or not. On 06th, she met with one Baba but did not ask what the place she found. She further stated that the accused Ravi Baghel took food for them, and she refused to take food. Thereafter, all three accused persons committed rape upon her, and she went in unconsciousness is disclosed in her police statement and FIR Ex.P/1. If it is not there, she could not tell the reason. She further stated that the accused persons left her alone in the jungle and fled away. When she regained her consciousness, she found 17 herself naked, and on 06.12.2013, a Baba came towards the jungle have also been disclosed in the FIR Ex.P/1 and Police statement Ex.D/1. But if it is not there, she could not tell the reason. She also disclosed that after making a telephonic call to her husband there at about 08:00 am, if it is also not mentioned in FIR and police statement, she could not tell the reason. She has not disclosed before the police at the time of lodging the report that at about 11:00 a.m. her hand and legs were tied, accused Ravi Baghel gave her the food and released her and hand and legs, she took her food and again went in unconsciousness but on what basis the police has written the same in the FIR Ex.P/1 she could not tell. There are certain other discrepancies that have been stated by her in her deposition with respect to the disclosure in the FIR and police statement. She did not know the accused, Anil Khanna, previously. She has not disclosed in her police statement that after 04-05 hours, her husband came with Advocate Anil Khana and they lodged the report at Balco Police Station. She admitted that there was no injury found on her body at the time of her medical examination. She also denied the suggestion that on the alleged date of the incident, the accused Ramadhar was in the Kharsiya Court and appeared in the proceeding in a case. 23. From the evidence of the victim PW-1, it clearly reveals that her husband was being prosecuted on the complaint made by the accused Rajesh Khunte with respect to the rape of his daughter, 18 in which the husband of the present victim was also an accused. When the parties have strange relation and on the report of Rajesh Khunte, the husband of the victim sent in jail, her presence at village Kanhakot was not in knowledge of anyone except her husband, she allegedly accompanied the three accused persons in their Marshal Jeep are highly improbably particularly when the Bus Stand is a busy public place and she has not made any objection and had not refused to go with them. Particularly, there is an availability of a passenger bus for which she was waiting at the Bus Stand. The allegation that as and when she boarded in the jeep, the accused persons gave her the divine grace (Prasad) and after consuming it she went in unconsciousness is also highly improbably for the reason that as per the evidence of the victim herself no one were in knowledge that she was at village Kanhakot and therefore, no one can prepared a plan to give the such intoxicated divine grace (Prasad) to the victim and to take advantage of the same. When their relation was strange, the story of accompanying the accused persons and taking the divine grace (Prasad) from them highly doubtful and against normal human conduct. 24. In the case of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar 2020 (3) SCC, 443, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as to who can be a sterling witness and what its requirement. In Para 5.4.2 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- 19 “5.4.2. In Rai Sandeep³, this Court had an occasion to consider who can be f said to be a "sterling witness". In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) "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 9 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 20 version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to 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." 25. It is no doubt that to hold an accused guilty for the commission of the offence of rape, the evidence of the victim is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence which she gave, she could not pass the test of quality of the sterling witness. 21 26. In the case of Dola alias Dolagobinda Pradhan and another vs. State of Odisha, 2018 (18), SCC, 695, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para -6 to 9 that: 6. It is well-settled law that if the version of the prosecutrix is believed, basic truth in her evidence is ascertainable and if it is found to be credible and consistent, the same would form the basis of conviction. Corroboration is not a sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the "probabilities factor" does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration, except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. When a grown up and married woman gives evidence on oath in court that she was raped, it is not the proper judicial approach to disbelieve d her outright. 7. In this regard it would be useful to quote certain observations of this Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat wherein it is observed that: (SCC pp. 225-27, paras 10-11) “10. By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the 22 context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because: (1) A girl or a woman in the tradition- bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition-bound society where by and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband 23 and members of the husband's family of a married woman, would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the court, to face the cross- examination by counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent. 11. In view of these factors the victims and their relatives are not c too keen to bring the culprit to books. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. On principle, the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on a par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted) is the best witness in the sense d that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration norwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eyewitness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding e insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the courts in the western world (obeisance to which has perhaps become a 24 habit presumably on account of the colonial hangover). We are therefore of the opinion that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the "probabilities factor" does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to f insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming, subject to the following qualification: Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self-preservation. Or when g the "probabilities factor" is found to be out of tune." (emphasis supplied) 8. In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra, this Court reiterated that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix could be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the Court: (SCC p. 95, para 9) “9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen." 25 9. However, as is also evident from the observations above, such reliance may be placed only if the testimony of the prosecutrix appears to be worthy of credence. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the following observations of this Court in Raju v. State of M.P.4, which read thus: (SCC p. 141, paras 10-11) "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 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." 26 Having due regard in our mind to the abovementioned settled position in law, we have assessed the entire material on record meticulously.” 27. PW-2, who was examined on 10.02.2015 at the time when the accused Rajesh Khunte was arrested (Sessions Case No. 98/2014), has stated in his evidence that on 07.12.2013, when he had gone for a morning walk, on the way, the victim asked her to make a telephonic call, and she gave the mobile number of her husband. He informed him that his wife is at Balco Nagar and took her back. At about 11:30-12:00 hours, her husband came there, and when she was disclosing the incident to him, he heard the same. He accompanied them to the police Station for lodging the report. At this stage, he was being asked the leading question, and then he disclosed that he could not remember the names of the accused persons, which was disclosed by the victim. In cross-examination, he stated that he is not in knowledge that on the report made by accused Rajesh Khunte, the husband of the victim, namely Mandan Lal, Anil Khanna, and Rakesh Khunte are being prosecuted for the offence of Section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. He also did not know that they were in jail. The victim has not disclosed the house where she suffered the offence of rape. Prior to that, he was unknown to the victim. She also could not remember the mobile number, which she disclosed. He has not disclosed to the police that he heard the conversation between the victim and her husband. He also did not ask the victim about the incident. 27 28. This witness was again examined on 03.08.2024 as PW-11 when the two accused persons were arrested (Sessions Case No. 38/2021). He stated in his evidence that he did not know the accused persons by their faces. He did not know about the seizure made by the accused persons. He declared hostile and denied the seizure of the clothes of the victim, and there is nothing in his evidence to discuss here. He is the person who allegedly met with the victim in the morning when she regained her consciousness, and she came out of her house, where she was kept by the accused persons during the night. Except for the telephonic call made through a mobile phone on being asked by the victim, he has not inquired about the incident, which is also against normal human behaviour. Particularly when the victim was an stanger to him. Further, the victim has not disclosed any incident to him. When the victim was in such a situation that her clothes were torned and she was in a disturbed condition due to the alleged offence of rape. She must have informed the person that she suffered the incident and asked for help to call her husband. In both these occasions, he did not substantively support the prosecution’s case, which is corroborative of the evidence of the victim. Even though the mobile phone has not been seized, through which he made a telephonic call to the husband of the victim, and there is no CDR of the said mobile phone. 28 29. PW-3, (Sessions Case No. 98/2014) is the father of the victim who stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident at about 05:00 pm, he left her daughter at Knahakot Bus Stand, who had to go to her house. The next day her husband informed that she had not reached to her house and when she could not be found despite her search, he informed the police. The next day, her husband informed him that she had come back, but where she had gone, he did not know. This witness has also asked the leading question, and then he denied that her husband informed him that his daughter was being subjected to kidnap and rape by the accused persons, and she had lodged a report at Balco Police Station. He also denied by giving his police statement, Ex.P/7. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know what had been written in the report Ex.P/6 and who prepared it. He further admitted that he has not left his daughter at the village Deverghata. He further admitted that within two days after lodging the report, he had not met with Madan Lal. When the father of the victim himself has not supported the prosecution’s case that he was being informed by Madan Lal that the victim suffered any incident of kidnapping and rape by the accused persons, and denied his police statement, the story developed by the prosecution appears to be concocted. 30. PW-5 (Sessions Case No. 98/2014) and PW-2 (Sessions Case No. 38/2021), is the husband of the victim who stated in his evidence that on 05.12.2013 at about 08:00-08:00 pm he had 29 gone to village Kanhakot and asked his father-in-law about his wife, and then he disclosed that he left her at the bus stand. When he came to his house, his children informed him that she could not reach there. He informed it to her father and started searching in the relatives’ house. On 06.12.2013 in the evening, he again went to Kanhakot, informed the incident and lodged the report at Police Station Dabhra. The next morning, he received a telephone call from an unknown number, and then he had a conversation with his wife, and she informed him that three accused Rajesh Kunte, Ramadhar Baghel and Ravi Baghel kidnapped her and committed rape upon her and fled away. He took her location and went there. His wife has informed the entire incident, and then he went to Police Station for lodging of the report. In cross-examination, he admitted that he is an accused along with Rakesh Khunte and Anil Khanna for the offence under Section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. In that case, the present accused, Rajesh Khunte, was the complainant, and the allegation of rape against his daughter is there. He admitted that the accused Rajesh Khunte, his wife, and daughter have not compromised with them. He did not know whether Rajesh Khunte had any complaint against the Kharsiya police or not. He further admitted that the accused Ramadhar is a practising advocate at Kharsiya Court. He did not know whether Ramadhar was helping the accused Rajesh Khunte or not. He also did not know whether the accused Ravi Bahgel is a friend of the accused Rajesh 30 Khunte or not. He also admitted that on 21.03.2011, his wife had lodged a report at Police Station Kharsiya against Umesh Dadsena, Mukesh Dadsena, Jai Singh Rathiya and Jailal Rathiya for trespassing the house and outraging modesty. He further stated that the place from where his wife boarded the four- wheeler vehicle is the place situated between the village of Shero and Deverghata. He further stated that his father-in-law does not mobile phone and he used to talk with mobile phone of his brother-in-law. Certain discrepancies appear in his evidence with that of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. He also denied giving a certain statement to the police in his police statement. When he was again examined in Sessions Case No. 38/2021, he stated that he had not had any conversation with the accused persons prior to 2011. When he left his wife at village Kanhakot, he assured her that he would take her back in the evening. He is using the mobile phone, but his wife has not informed him that he is going to her house by Bus. When he could not find his wife, he did not make any complaint to the Sarpanch and had not lodged any report to Police Station Kharsiya. When he received the telephone call in the morning, he made a telephone call to Anil Khanna Advocate, and he asked him to come to Korba by saying that he was also at Chainpur Korba, and then they met near Ghanta Ghar at Korba. His wife was found near Durga Pandal along with the Baba. His wife has not informed him about the place where she suffered the offence of rape. He further stated 31 that he disclosed in his police statement that the accused Ravi brought food for his wife but she did not take it, all the accused persons committed rape upon her and she went in unconsciousness, when she regain her conscious she found herself in jungle and her clothes were disturbed and she feels that she suffered the offence of rape repeatedly, and if it not there in his police statement Ex.D/2 he could not tell the reason. He is the person who is accused of the offence of rape against the daughter of the present accused, Rajesh Khunte, in which they gave a statement against him, and he has been convicted. 31. PW-10, Dr. K. B. Sonkar (Sessions Case No. 98/2014) and PW- 13 (Sessions No. 38/2021) have stated in their evidence that on 08.12.2013, they medically examined the victim. She did not find any external or internal injuries on her body, and there is no sign of any resistance. She was habituated to sexual intercourse, and no definite can be given regarding forceful sexual intercourse. In cross-examination also reaffirms that she has no external or internal injuries on her body. She also stated that there was no sign of tying the hands and legs of the victim. She has not disclosed any pain in her body, and she could not notice any semen spot on her private part or any other part of her body. She could not notice any sign of rape upon her. 32. In the present case, the defence has filed the document Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3, which are the certified copies of the charge-sheet of Crime No. 154/2011, FIR registered at Police Station Kharsiya 32 against Rakesh Khunte, Anil Khanna and charge-sheet was filed against three accused persons, Rakesh Khunte, Anil Khanna and Madan Lal and also the copy of the judgment dated 28.11.2016. 33. In the (Sessions Case No. 38/2021), the accused Ramadhar Baghel examined himself as DW-1 and proved the documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/33, which are the documents of Sessions Case No. 107/2011 which was against the accused Rakesh Khunte, Anil Khanna and Madan Lal and also various complaints made to the police against the aforesaid three accused persons. The DW- 1 has stated in his evidence that he is a practising advocate at Civil Court, Kharsiya Raigarha and Sakti. On the instruction of his client, Santram, he made a complaint against Hemram and Anil Kumar Khanna in the year 2005, which is Ex.D/3. On 01.10.2005, he objected to the anticipatory bail application of accused Hemram Khunte and Anil Khanna, and then the said anticipatory bail application was rejected, and its order sheet is Ex.D/4. He also relied on the various order-sheets of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kharsiya Ex.D/5 to Ex.D/12. The FIR registered at Police Station Kharsiya Ex.D/13, and the complaint made by Sukhram is Ex. D/16. The complaint made by the accused Ramadhar to the Human Rights Commission, Raipur, is Ex.D/20, and the complaint to the D.G. Police is Ex.D/21. The evidence of the victim is Ex.D/22, and the complaint against the accused Anil Khanna is Ex.D/25. Various other complaints have also been made by him regarding threating given by the accused 33 person to him, and for a proper investigation into the matter. It is not in dispute that on the report made by the accused Rajesh Khunte with respect to the offence of rape upon his daughter by the accused persons, Rakesh Khunte, Anil Khanna and Madan Lal were prosecuted and convicted by the learned trial Court. The victim in the present case is the wife of the accused, Madan Lal. It is the case of the present accused persons that the present offence is only a counterblast without having any true genesis of occurrence, and it is a concocted story developed by the prosecution. In view of the strange relation between the parties, accompanying the victim with the present accused persons and the manner in which the incident is alleged, does not inspire confidence upon the Court that the accused persons committed rape upon the victim as has been alleged in the case. 34. Having gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the case and totality of the instances and sequence of events makes the case of the prosecution doubtful, for which the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. 35. The version of the prosecutrix commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cost some doubt in the mind of the Court on the veracity of the prosecutrix evidence, then it will not be safe to rely on the said version of the prosecutrix. There is contradiction and omission in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The law is well-settled that in a case of rape, conviction can be maintained 34 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 confidence. Even though the testimony of the prosecutrix is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to being home the charges levelled against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 36. Consequently, by giving the benefit of doubt, the appeals filed by the respective appellants are allowed, and they are acquitted of the alleged offences. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.03.2018 (passed in Sessions Case No. 98/2014, State vs. Rajesh Khunte) and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.07.2025 (passed in Sessions Case No. 38/2021, State vs. Ravi Baghel and another) are set aside. 37. The accused Rajesh Khunte (CRA No. 534/2018) is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall continue for the further period of 6 months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 38. The accused persons, Ravi Baghel (CRA No. 1508/2025) and Ramadhar Baghel (CRA No. 1495/2025), are reported to have been in jail since 14.07.2025. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 39. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant- Ravi Baghel and Ramadhar Baghel are directed to furnish a personal bond for a 35 sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 40. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Ved/Alok