1 2026:CGHC:8938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1502 of 2016 Shivkumar S/o Ravikumar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kotsari, Police Chowki Davra, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Chowki Davra, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate on behalf of Smt. Uttara Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 19.02.2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure A-1), whereby appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence 2 Under Section 450 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 02 months additional RI. Under Section 376 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 02 months additional RI. Both sentence run concurrently 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 08/07/2014 the prosecutrix lodged a report before the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that on 07/07/2014 her husband went outside, after taking meal her family members went for sleeping in their respective rooms, she (prosecutrix) was sleeping alone in her room, at about 10.30 to 11.00 pm, the appellant entered into her room, started committing sexual intercourse with her, at that time she thought that her husband is committing sexual intercourse with her, however, completion of intercourse, she found that appellant has committed sexual intercourse with her, to which, she started raising alarm and informed about the incident to the family members and meanwhile her husband reached to the house. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellant for the alleged offence/crime. 3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed and based upon which, trial Court framed the charge 3 against the appellant. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 09 witnesses. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the law and facts available on record. While convicting the accused/appellant, the learned trial Court committed gross error by ignoring the fact that there is any no direct evidence available against the present appellant to connect him with crime in question. Prosecutrix and her husband demanded Rs.75,000/- from the appellant and when he denied to give the same, false report has been lodged against him. Earlier there was a dispute between both the family members in respect of some land. The prosecutrix is a major and 4 married lady, she is a consenting party. Medical report has not supported the case of the prosecution. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, which were not considered properly by learned trial Court. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse by appellant. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 9. Prosecutrix/victim (PW-1) in her evidence has stated that she knows the appellant-accused present before the Court, on the date of alleged incident at about 10:00 to 10:30 PM, she was sleeping in her room, her at husband had gone some distance away to the house. At the time of incident, she was sleeping alone in her room, however, her two brothers-in-law, her mother-in-law and her child were sleeping in another room in the house. During night, she does not know how, but a man (appellant) entered in her 5 room, caught hold of her hands on the bed and started doing a wrongful act with her, she initially thought that it was her husband, therefore, she did not raise any alarm, however, when he did not respond, she switched on a torch and saw that it was present appellant. By that time, he had already committed the wrongful act with her. Upon being asked the meaning of “wrongful act,” she stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with her. The accused snatched the torch from her hand and threw it away and fled away from there. After about half an hour, her husband returned to home, she narrated the incident to him. Her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law had also seen the accused. In her cross-examination, she stated that the accused is the son of the sister of her mother-in-law and their houses are adjacent to each other. She further stated that villagers told her that before her marriage their land had come within the boundary of the accused’s land, due to which, disputes used to arise between them. It is not correct to say that due to said land dispute, she lodged a false report against the appellant at the instance of her husband, however, she admitted that she lodged the report on the advice of the villagers. She further stated that it is incorrect to say that a meeting of the villagers was held in the village on the morning of the next day of the incident, however, she 6 stated that a meeting was held about one or two months ago. When this witness was asked whether she had demanded the money, she stated that appellant’s party had offered her Rs.5,000/- to settle the matter; she admitted that her husband said that the matter could be settled if Rs. 75,000/- were paid. 10. PW-2/mother-in-law of victim also admitted the fact regarding demand of Rs.75,000/- from the accused by her son (husband of victim). She also admitted that when the accused denied to pay the said amount, FIR has been lodged against him by her daughter-in-law (victim). She also admitted that there was previous dispute between the appellant and her son (husband of victim) regarding cattle. 11. PW-5/Dr. A. Kashyap (medical officer) in her deposition has stated that no injury has been found on the body of prosecutrix during examination. 12. The testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire full confidence and cannot be termed as that of a “sterling witness.” The testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from material improbabilities and contradictions and surrounding circumstances also do not support the prosecution version. Her testimony does not meet the standard of a wholly reliable witness. The evidence on record further indicates the existence of prior disputes between the families and also 7 suggests that a demand of money was made from the appellant, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story as how it is possible that other person instead of husband entered into room of victim and committed sexual intercourse with her and she though that he is her husband, she did not recognized him and has not raised any alarm. It seems that prosecutrix was a consenting party in this case to the act of the accused person. In these circumstances, the possibility of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. It would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant solely on testimony of the victim. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the aforesaid charges/offence. 14. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-