1 2026:CGHC:9351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.772 of 2007 1 - Ramesh Kumar Paikara Aged About 25 Years S/o Hariram Paikara, Police Chowky Kotba, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Buldega, Thana Bagbahar, Distt.-Jashpur, C.G. Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. Bagbahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 23/02/2026 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.05.2007 passed by the learned Session Judge, Jashpur (C.G.) in Session Trial No.12/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 (1), 447, 366 & 342 of IPC and sentenced to Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.250, RI for 3 months, RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.200/- and RI for 6 months, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the night of 15.11.2006 at about 10:00 PM, when on the next day (Thursday) Lakshmi Puja was to be performed and the prosecutrix was making chowk/rangoli in her courtyard, the accused came there, caught hold of Kumari Pushpa Chauhan’s hand, pressed her mouth, dragged her from there and took her to his house. He took her into his room and, threatening to kill her with a knife and warning her not to raise alarm, told her that he loved her and would make her his wife. Thereafter, during the night, he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the next day, dated 16.11.2006, the accused kept her confined in his house by locking it from outside for the whole day. On the third day, dated 17.11.2006 at about 8:00 AM, when the prosecutrix’s father went to the accused’s house in search of her, the accused opened the door. The prosecutrix then narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter they lodged report against the accused at the police station concerned and he was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate 3 the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecutrix is a major girl and is consenting party which is corroborated by her statement itself as well as her father. The medical report also does not support the prosecution,, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs State of Bihar, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 450, 366 & 376 (1) & 342 of IPC against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 447, 366, 376 (1) & 342 of IPC and in place of offence under Section 450 of IPC, he was convicted under Section 447 of IPC, as mentioned in 4 para 1 of the judgment. 7. The prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that on the date of incident, when she was sitting in the courtyard of her house, the accused suddenly entered her courtyard, caught hold of her hands and forcibly took her to his house and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. After committing rape, the accused kept here there for 3 days. After 3 days, her father came there searching her and took her with him and thereafter they lodged report (Ex-P/1). In the cross-examination, she admitted that the distance of her house and the house of accused is half km and in between there are various houses of other people. She denied this suggestion that she did not raise alarm and she stated that she shouted for two times but the accused pressed her mouth. She again stated that she did not raise any alarm as the accused threatened her. She also stated that as to who lives in the house of the accused, she does not know. The accused had kept her inside the room and locked her from outside. She denied this suggestion that in Ex-P/1. She denied that she was in love affair with the accused and she denied her police statement on A to A part of the same vide Ex-D/1. In FIR (Ex-P/1) she alleged that the accused had told her that he loves her and wants to marry her, but before learned Trial Court she denied the same. 8. PW-2 father of the prosecutrix stated the same story. He stated that on 15th day of month of Aghan month, her daughter was not at home then they searched her but could not find her. On the 5 next day also, she was searched for but she was not found. On Thursday, he went along with his friend Hariram to gather information about her daughter. Later Hariram informed him that prosecutrix was seen at the accused’s house but he did not consider it proper to go to Ramesh’s house at night that day. Then on the 17th in the morning at about 8:00 AM (Friday), he went to the accused’s house along with his brother Sudhanand, Chokhilal @ Ram, Basant, and Hetram and found her daughter there. In the cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion that the house of accused and his house are in the same colony and distance of their house is half km. He admitted this suggestion of defence that even after getting information that the prosecutrix is at the house of accused, he did not lodge any report at the police station. 9. Dr. Bhagya Prabha Sushma Ekka (PW-4) examined the prosecutrix but she did not find any external or internal injuries. She found old rupture hymen and gave her report (Ex-P/6). 10. The statement of the prosecutrix and her father clearly shows that the prosecutrix is consenting party. As per prosecutrix the accused took her to his house and kept her there for 3 days and committed rape with her but she did not tell anything to anybody during that period. The father of the prosecutrix admitted this suggestion that he did not lodge any report immediately even after knowing that the prosecutrix is at the house of accused. 6 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad (supra) held in paras 5.5 & 6 as under:- “5.5 With the aforesaid decisions in mind, it is required to be considered, whether is it safe to convict the accused solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix? Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality? 6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the examination- in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall accused came inside and thereafter the accused committed rape. She has stated that she identified the accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. Even nothing is on record that there was a broken 13compound wall. She has further stated that in the morning at 10 O’clock she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However, according to the investigating officer a written complaint was given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the prosecutrix has referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW1 and others. However, Shanti Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5 -prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. There is a delay in the FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect to land. The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the solitary version of the prosecutrix – PW5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.” 7 12. In light of the above, in the present case also as per the prosecution, the prosecutrix is aged about 20 years. The statements of prosecutrix and her father clearly shows that she is consenting party but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate all these aspects and gave wrong finding, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid charges. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 15. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, 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. 16. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala