1 2026:CGHC:1448 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2197 of 2000 Ghuran S/o Fatku Nagesiya, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village – Luchki, P.S. – Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh). --- Appellant versus The State Of M.P., through P.S. – Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Madhya Pradesh. (Now Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent Along with CRA No. 2023 of 2000 1. Ramesh S/o Rakhi Ram Uraon, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bandhuachwan, P.S. – Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh). 2. Kishun S/o Marhoo Ram Uraon, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Bandhuachwan, P.S. – Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh). ---Appellants Versus The State Of M.P., through P.S. – Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Madhya Pradesh. (Now Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.01.2026 1. The office report goes to show that the appellant Kishun is stated to have been absconding and in compliance of the order of the co- ordinate bench of this Court dated 04.08.2022, an arrest warrant was issued against him but despite the issuance of bailable warrant he did not appear before the Court, therefore, non-bailable warrants were also issued against the appellant – Kishun on various dates, and on the last date of hearing also a fresh non-bailable warrant was issued issued against him through Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, but till date he could not get the appellant – Kishun arrested. There are two more accused in the present case namely – Ghuran and Ramesh, who are represented by their counsel Ms. Savita Tiwari. It also appears that the surety with respect to the bail bond of appellant – Kishun, has died during the pendency of the instant appeals. Hence, considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2000 and the accused/appellant – Kishun could not be traced out, this Court deems it appropriate to hear the matter finally on merits with the consent of both the parties, as all the three appellants are represented by their counsel Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. 2. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.07.2000 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 241/1996 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: 3 Sentence Conviction Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years. Under Section 366 of the IPC. Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years. Under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 01 year. (All the sentences will run concurrently) 3. The genesis of the prosecution case lies in the First Information Report lodged by the complainant, Shardhabai, at Police Station Ambikapur on 08.05.1996 at about 12:15 PM, which was registered as FIR No. 299/96 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the IPC, marked as (Ex.P/1). In the said report, the complainant/victim disclosed that she had been married about four months prior to the incident and, after marriage, was residing with her husband in Village Chendra, leading a peaceful matrimonial life. According to the prosecution, on 28.04.1996, the appellants Kishun and Ramesh came to Village Chendra and approached the victim. By deliberately giving false and misleading information, they represented to her that her parents were seriously ill and had urgently called her to her parental home. Trusting their statement and having no reason to doubt their intention, the victim informed her husband about the alleged illness of her parents. After obtaining his consent, she accompanied the accused persons with the sole intention of visiting her parents. 4 4. The prosecution further alleges that instead of taking the victim to her parental village, the accused persons diverted the route and, upon reaching a lonely and isolated place in the Lalmati forest, the accused Kishun forcibly overpowered the victim and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. During the commission of the said offence, appellant Ramesh actively facilitated the crime by keeping watch and standing guard, thereby preventing any possibility of intervention or escape. It is the specific case of the prosecution that thereafter, for a period of three to four days, both the appellants Kishun and Ramesh wrongfully confined the victim in the forest area, depriving her of her liberty and keeping her under constant threat and fear. During this period, the victim was prevented from contacting her family members or returning to her matrimonial home. Subsequently, the accused persons took the victim to Village Luchki and confined her in the house of accused Ghuran Nagesia. The prosecution alleges that even at the said house, the victim was kept against her will and subjected to repeated sexual assault. She was continuously restrained and intimidated, making it impossible for her to escape or seek help. 5. The prosecution case further states that, after some time, information regarding the incident reached the victim’s family. Thereafter, her aunt, Jira Bai, intervened and took the victim to her father. Upon reaching her parental home, the victim narrated the entire sequence of events to her family members and the villagers, detailing the deceit, abduction, confinement, and sexual assault committed by the accused persons. After regaining a sense of security and support, the victim 5 proceeded to Police Station – Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, and lodged the aforesaid report, on the basis of which the present crime was registered and investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, after obtaining the consent of the victim and her father, arranged for her medical examination. The spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared, relevant seizure proceedings were conducted, and statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC were recorded. Upon completion of the investigation, the accused persons were arrested, and after collecting all relevant evidence, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet before the trial Court. 6. On perusal of the presented charge sheet and the attached documents, prima facie it appeared that the accused had committed the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the IPC, hence charges were framed under the said Sections. On being read out and explained the charges to the accused, the accused abjured his guilt and pleaded trial, saying that he was innocent. 7. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited a total of 10 documents on record. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the 6 IPC, sentenced him accordingly as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that on the date of incident the victim was already a married girl and there was an affair between the appellant Kishun and the victim. It is also submitted that only allegations against the appellant Ghuran is that the victim and the appellants Ramesh and Kishun had stayed in his house for certain period, therefore, the appellant had in no way participated in the commission of the aforesaid crime and he cannot be associated with the act of other accused persons. So far as the accused Ramesh is concerned, as per paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, the victim has stated that the appellant Ramesh was not present at the time of commission of rape. It is also submitted that there is a contradiction between the allegations levelled against the appellants and the statement of the prosecution witnesses including the victim’s statement, as the victim had stated that she lived with the appellant for 5 days in jungle and in the house of Ghuram, but she lived with mother, father, brother, sister and wife of Ghuram and did not complaint to anybody during the said period. It is also submitted that so far as MLC report is concerned, no such mark of injury on the victim’s body is opined by the doctor, and the FSL report is also said to be negative, thus it reveals that the victim was a consenting party and she was living with the appellant with her own will. Therefore, the findings of learned trial Court is totally erroneous and that has been 7 based on the surmises and conjunctures and without finding any legal proof, the learned trial Court has held guilt of the appellants. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the therefore there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned trial Court. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the victim (PW-1) has clearly deposed the conduct of the appellants in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and in the Court statement and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 11. While examining the question of age, it clearly emerges from the record that the determination of the victim’s age has been made largely on the basis of assumptions and the opinion derived from radiological examination, without any reliable documentary evidence. The trial court sought clarification from the victim on the issue of age, and in her statement before the Court, she stated her age to be about 15 years. However, it is well settled that the self-assessment of age by a victim, particularly in the absence of documentary proof, cannot by itself be treated as conclusive. 12. The prosecution further relied upon the radiological examination conducted by Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-05), who opined that the victim appeared to be below 16 years of age. It is, however, a settled 8 proposition of law that radiological tests do not provide an exact determination of age and are only indicative in nature, subject to a margin of error of two years on either side. Such medical opinion is based on general ossification standards and does not take into account individual variations due to factors such as nutrition, climate, and hereditary conditions. Consequently, a finding of age based solely on radiological examination remains speculative and cannot be treated as definitive proof. 13. Significantly, no documentary evidence such as a birth certificate, school admission register, or any contemporaneous record relating to the date of birth of the victim was produced by the prosecution. In the absence of such primary evidence, reliance solely on radiological opinion amounts to deciding the age on conjectures and assumptions rather than on legally admissible and reliable proof. 14. Moreover, the testimony of the victim’s father (PW-06), being the natural guardian and the most competent person to depose about her age, has not been given due weight. His statement regarding the age of the victim, when read in conjunction with the admitted margin of error in radiological tests, clearly demonstrates that the prosecution has failed to establish the age of the victim with certainty. Thus, the conclusion regarding the age of the victim, arrived at merely on the basis of assumptions and radiological examination, cannot be sustained in law. 15. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the IPC ? 9 16. Though, the doctor who conducted medical examination of the victim has concluded in her statement that there was no fresh injury or any mark of resistance was present on the body of the victim. As such, there is no corroborative evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the IPC. 17. From the perusal of the evidence of the victim girl (PW-01), she in her deposition before the trial Court stated that she knows the accused persons/appellants. She further stated that the incident had occurred about two years prior to her statement and that she was residing at village Badhiyachuvan. She stated that accused Ramesh had come to her house and informed her that her father was unwell. At that time, no other family member was present in the house. Accused Ramesh told her that her brother, namely accused Ramesh himself, had come to take her along and asked her to accompany him. Believing his statement, the witness accompanied the accused towards village Badhiyachuvan. She further stated that accused Ramesh had gone to call her to her matrimonial home at village Chendra. On the way, accused Kishun met them, and thereafter both the accused persons showed her a knife and threatened that if she raised an alarm, her throat would be slit. 18. In her examination-in-chief, the victim further stated that thereafter accused Kishun forcibly took her into the forest, where accused Kishun committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. While explaining the act of force, the witness stated that accused Kishun was outraging her modesty, and at that time accused Ramesh was doing 10 nothing. She further stated that accused Kishun threw her on the ground and, upon her raising alarm, threatened to kill her with a knife and forcibly committed rape with her. 19. Upon being further questioned by the Court as to what accused Ramesh and accused Ghuran were doing at the time when accused Kishun committed the act of rape on her, the victim stated that when accused Kishun was committing the rape on her, accused Ramesh had gone to fetch food and was not present at the place of occurrence, whereas accused Ghuran was present there. She clarified that accused Ramesh and accused Ghuran did not themselves commit any act of rape with her, but both of them had assisted and helped the accused Kishun to commit the crime in question. 20. The victim (PW-01) further stated that the incident committed by accused Kishun had taken place at about 1:00 PM, and thereafter accused Kishun and accused Ghuran took her to the house of accused Ghuran. In paragraph 7 of her examination-in-chief, the victim further stated that she was confined in the house of accused Ghuran for about five days. During this period, food was provided to her and accused Kishun by accused Ghuran. She further stated that while she was confined in the house of accused Ghuran, after two days, her aunt Jira Bai, who had gone towards Luchki for casting her vote, saw her in the house of accused Ghuran. Thereafter, her aunt took her from the house of accused Ghuran to the house of her sister Munni Bai (PW- 03) at Mahamaya Para. Her aunt Jira Bai also informed her father in the village about the incident. Thereafter, the victim did not go anywhere and stayed with her sister at Ambikapur. She stated that she 11 had gone to lodge the report. When the FIR (Ex.P-1) was read over to the victim (PW-01), she stated that the report had been written at the Police Station at her instance. 21. Upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court finds that there is no independent eye-witness to substantiate the charge of rape as alleged by the prosecution. The entire prosecution case rests primarily on the testimony of the victim herself. However, even her own deposition does not consistently support the prosecution version insofar as the involvement of all the accused persons is concerned. Significantly, in her examination-in-chief as well as in response to specific queries put by the trial Court, the victim has categorically admitted that accused/appellant Ramesh and accused/appellant Ghuran did not commit any wrongful act with her. She has clearly stated that at the time when the alleged act was committed by accused Kishun, accused Ramesh had gone away to fetch food and was not present at the place of occurrence, while accused Ghuran, though present, did not himself commit any act of sexual assault upon her. Such admissions made by the victim strike at the root of the prosecution case insofar as the direct participation of accused Ramesh and Ghuran in the commission of rape is concerned. It is further evident that no other witness has been examined by the prosecution who claims to have seen the alleged occurrence or who could be termed as an eye-witness to the incident of rape. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any direct evidence to show that accused Ramesh and Ghuran shared the common intention to 12 commit the offence of rape or that they actively participated in the commission thereof at the relevant time. 22. In the absence of any independent ocular evidence and in view of the clear and unequivocal admission of the victim herself that accused Ramesh and Ghuran had not committed any sexual act with her, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of rape against the said accused beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction, if any, based on mere assumptions or inferential reasoning, without cogent eye-witness testimony, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 23. The doctor witness, Smt. S.P. Jaiswal (PW-04), Assistant Surgeon, in her testimony stated that since the victim was a married woman, her hymen was found to be old torn. She further stated that two fingers could be easily inserted into her private part. No fresh tear or recent injury was found on the body of the victim, and no pain was noted upon examination. Two vaginal slides were prepared from the vaginal swab and were advised for chemical examination; the same were sealed and handed over to the concerned constable. She further deposed that on 09.05.1996, a green-coloured petticoat having six stains resembling blood and semen was produced, which was also advised to be sent for chemical examination. The medical witness also stated that it is not necessary that injury marks would invariably be found if a woman is subjected to sexual intercourse while lying on her back on the ground for several days. However, she categorically stated that at the time of medical examination of the victim, no injuries were found on her buttocks, back, or external parts of the body. From 13 this medical evidence, it can reasonably be inferred that if the victim had been subjected to forcible physical assault and rape by the accused Kishun, there would have been at least some marks of resistance or struggle on her body, which were conspicuously absent. 24. As per the prosecution case, the victim was allegedly detained by appellants Ghuran, Ramesh and Kishun in the house of appellant Ghuran, where she was subjected to sexual assault by appellant Kishun. However, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assumes significance. In her said statement, the victim categorically stated that during her stay at the house of appellant Ghuran, the wife, mother, father and brother of Ghuran were also residing in the same house. Despite being in the company of several family members for a continuous period of 3 to 4 days, the victim neither raised any alarm nor made any complaint to any person present in the house. 25. It is further evident from the record that during this prolonged stay, the victim also did not make any attempt to flee from the house of appellant Ghuran. The absence of any resistance, complaint or effort to escape, particularly when ample opportunity was available, creates a serious doubt about the prosecution version regarding her alleged illegal detention. The conduct of the victim, as reflected from her own statement, is inconsistent with the allegation of forcible confinement and sexual assault. 26. So far as appellant Ramesh is concerned, paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment itself records the statement of the victim that 14 appellant Ramesh was not present at the time of the alleged commission of rape. In the absence of any overt act or specific role attributed to him, his implication appears wholly unjustified. 27. Similarly, the only allegation against appellant Ghuran is that the victim and other appellants stayed in his house for some period. Mere presence or permitting stay, without any evidence of participation, instigation or common intention, is insufficient to fasten criminal liability upon him for the acts allegedly committed by appellant Kishun. 28. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. The MLC report does not indicate any injury marks on the body of the victim suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse. The FSL report is also negative. These circumstances further weaken the prosecution case and lend support to the defence contention that the victim was a consenting party. 29. Moreover, it has come on record that the victim was already a married woman and had an alleged affair with appellant Kishun. The sequence of events reveals that the FIR was lodged only after the victim was noticed by her aunt at the house of appellant Ghuran. This fact, coupled with the conduct of the victim during her stay, gives rise to a strong inference that she had voluntarily eloped with appellant Kishun and was residing with him at the house of appellant Ghuran of her own free will. 30. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded the conviction on the basis of 15 surmises and conjectures, without there being any cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 31. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 32. Considering the entire evidence available on record and the conduct of the victim, I am of the opinion that the prosecution version suffers from serious inconsistencies, material contradictions and inherent improbabilities. The testimony of the victim herself does not fully corroborate the allegations levelled against all the appellants, particularly with regard to the role attributed to appellants Ramesh and Ghuran. The medical and forensic evidence fails to lend assurance to the allegation of forcible sexual assault, as no injuries or marks of resistance were found on the body of the victim and the FSL report is negative. The conduct of the victim during her alleged confinement in the house of appellant Ghuran, despite the presence of his several family members and the availability of ample opportunity to raise alarm or escape, coupled with the delayed lodging of the FIR only after she was noticed by her aunt, creates a serious doubt about the prosecution claim of illegal detention and forcible rape. Taken together, 16 these circumstances probabilise the defence version that the victim had voluntarily accompanied appellant Kishun and was residing with him of her own free will. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the IPC would not be made out against the appellants. 33. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court dated 28.07.2000 is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted from all the charges. Though the appellants are on bail, but the appellant – Kishun is stated to be absconding and his surety with respect to his bail bond has also died during the pendency of the present appeals. The appellants – Ramesh and Ghuran are not required to surrender, and their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stands discharged. And so far as the appellant – Kishun is concerned, he is also not required to be surrender, and the warrant of arrest earlier issued against him, stands hereby cancelled. 34. In view of the foregoing, the warrant of arrest earlier issued against the accused/appellant – Kishun, stands hereby cancelled. 35. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of BNSS), the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bonds in terms of from No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25000/- with 2 reliable sureties 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, the aforesaid 17 appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 36. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment and transmit the original records to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar