2026:CGHC:22541-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1476 of 2015 1 - Jeevan Mandavi S/o Mangau Ram Mandavi Aged About 20 Years R/o Salhepara Kulhadkatta P.S. And Tahsil Bhanupratappur Revenue And Civil District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Arun Kumar Nareti S/o Nawal Ram Nareti Aged About 21 Years R/o Salhepara Kulhadkatta P.S. And Tahsil Bhanupratappur Revenue And Civil District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh , District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bhanupratappur District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Amit Buxy, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.05.2026 Heard Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Amit Buxy, PL for the State. 1. Pursuant to order dated 09.04.2026 bailable warrants were issued against the appellants. Present appeal has been listed for appearance of accused appellants before this court vide order dated 09.04.2026 and in compliance of the same appellant Jeevan Madavi and Arun Kumar Nareti Cra 1476 of 2015 2 are present before the court today and they have been identified by their learned counsels. Since the appeal is of the year 2015, with the consent of parties it has been heard finally. 2. Present is a criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the CRPC by the appellant against the impugned judgement of conviction of order of sentence dated 28.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Bhanuprtappur, District North Bastar, Kanker in sessions trial no. 13 of 2015 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently and with default stipulation: CONVICTION SENTENCE Under section 366/34 IPC RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- 376 (D) of IPC RI for 20 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Case of the Prosecution in brief is that on 21.04.2015, the victim lodged report against the appellant Jeevan Mandavi with the allegation that she was being subjected to rape by the said appellant in the month of February 2015 and he kept her in his house for about a month. Thereafter, both of them were agreed to reside separately along with their respective parents and they are residing separately. On 18.04.2015 when she had gone for a marriage function along with her friend, at about 10 -11 PM when she was returning back to her house, appellant came there gagged her mouth and dragged her towards jungle, tied her hands Cra 1476 of 2015 3 and mouth by stroll and committed rape upon her. He kept her in jungle on 19.04.2015 and on 20.4.2015 when he opened the knot of the stroll she fled away from the place and informed the village Kothwari and then he informed the incident to her parents and after a meeting in the village she lodged report. 4. FIR Ex.P1 was registered against the appellants under Sections 363, 376 & 346 of the IPC. The victim was sent for her medical examination to the Community Health Centre, Turugu, where she was medically examined by PW10 Dr.Bhagyalaxmi Kosma, who gave her medical report Ex.P14. While medically examining the victim, the doctor noticed rupture of hymen, tender and mild contusion present on her private part and she opined that the victim is recently had sexual intercourse. 5. Two slides of her vaginal smear were made, sealed and handed over for their chemical examination. Spot-map Ex.P3 was prepared by the police, Ex.P7 was prepared by the Patwari. Clothes of the victim have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P4. Statement of the victim under section 163 of CRPC was recorded on 01.05.2015 which is Ex.P2 where she alleged the incident against both the appellants and thereafter both the appellants were arrested on 02.05.2015. Appellant Jeevan Mandavi also has been sent for his medical examination to the community health centre, Banupratappur and where PW11 Dr.Surendra Cra 1476 of 2015 4 Singh medically examined him and gave his report. He opined that appellant Jeevan Mandavi is able for sexual activities. 6. Statement of the witnesses under section 161 CRPC were recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against three accused persons namely, Jeevan Mandavi, Arun Kumar Nareti and Ramvilas Uike before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur for the offence under sections 363, 376, & 346 of the IPC. Case was committed to the learned Session Judge North Bastar, Kanker from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial court for its trial. 7. The learned trial court framed charge against the accused persons for the offences 363, 376 (2)(g) and 34 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove guilty against the accused persons prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 163 of the CRPC has also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances against them and pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the case. 8. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the learned trial court, it acquitted the accused Ramvilas Uike from all the offences and has convicted present appellants, Jeevan Mandavi and Arun Kumar Nareti and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. Cra 1476 of 2015 5 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis of their conviction for the offence in question. Initially FIR was lodged only against the appellant, Jeevan Mandavi, however after a considerable period of about 10 days when her statement under Section 164 CRPC was recorded she exaggerated the incident and made allegation against three accused persons that they kidnapped her and appellant Jeevan Mandavi committed rape upon her. Had she been kidnapped and all the accused persons committed rape upon her, she would have lodged the report against all the three accused persons when the FIR was registered. He would further submit that from the evidence of the victim PW1 it clearly reveals that she was having love affair with the appellant Jeevan Mandavi, she resided with him for about one month and she still wanted to reside with him but due to objection raised by her family members she started residing with her parents. She on her own will accompanied the appellant Jeevan Madavi and he has not kidnapped her. Further, she herself on her will engaged in making sexual physical relation with the appellant Jeevan Mandavi and it is only on the instance of her parents, she lodged report against him and other accused persons. Her evidence is shaky with respect to kidnapping and also commission of rape. She being a major girl having love affair with the appellant engaged in making consensual sexual relationship, an there is no offence of either kidnapping, or rape has been proved. Cra 1476 of 2015 6 10. The allegation against the appellant Arun Kumar Nareti is that he assisted the accused Jeevan Mandavi in kidnapping the girl with him. However, the said allegation is completely missing in the FIR and it was developed subsequently to implicate him in the offence in question. Evidence of the victim is not supported in any other witnesses and such an exaggerated and developed story cannot be held to be reliable and the appellants cannot be convicted on such an exaggerated statements made by the victim. Therefore the appellants are entitled for their acquittal. 11. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the state would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt but for minor omissions and contradictions the evidence of prosecution witnesses which is sufficient to hold the conviction of the appellants. The allegation against the appellant Arun Kumar Nareti is that he assisted the accused Jeevan Mandavi in kidnapping the victim. On the date of the incident, accused persons came to the house of the victim gagged her mouth and kidnapped her. They took her towards jungle where appellant Jeevan Mandavi committed rape upon her. When the allegation of gang rape is levelled against the accused persons and the victim has said that she was not a consenting party, the court presumed that victim was not a consenting party in making physical relation. The evidence of victim PW1 completely satisfied the requirement section 376 (D) of the IPC and the act of the accused persons fall under the definition of gang rape. The Cra 1476 of 2015 7 injuries were found on the private part of the victim on her medical examination, which further support the allegation of gang rape by the appellants. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of trial court. 13. PW1 is the victim of the offence who stated in her evidence that on the date of incidence, she had gone to the house of her uncle for a marriage function at about 10 to 11 in the night when she was returning along with her friend, appellants followed them and tried to make conversation with her. But she did not respond. They followed the victim up to their house and she entered into her house, accused persons also entered into her house. Accused Ramvilas Uike was standing outside of her house, she was alone there as her other family members had gone to the marriage function. The accused persons tied her hands and gagged her mouth, dragged her towards the jungle. In the jungle, the accused Jeevan Mandavi asked the co-accused Arun Kumar Nareti to go back to the house and accused Jeevan Mandavi was only with her in the jungle he had not open her hands and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. Up till in the morning her hands were tied and when she asked to go for call of nature, accused Jevan Mandavi untied her hands, thereafter she fled away from the place and informed the village kotwar and then the village kotwar informed the other persons in the village. A Cra 1476 of 2015 8 village meeting was convened in which the accused was agreed for the proposal of keeping her as his wife but she denied for the same and lodged FIR Ex.P1. She further stated in her evidence that before the incident, she resided with the appellant in his house as his wife. At that time she had gone with him on her own will and has not lodged any report. Due to intervention of the community people, they had got separated and started residing with their respective parents. Her statement under Section 164 of the CRPC was also recorded before the Magistrate. 14. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had love affair with the accused Jeevan Mandavi and in the month of February, 2015 she resided with him for about a month in his house as his wife. On 16.03.2015 there was a community meeting in the village and before that there was no report has been lodged by her for the reason that she herself had gone with him. She further admitted that the community persons had pressurized them to reside them separately with their parents and imposed fine of Rs.16,000/- to each family if they would reside together and not obey the wish of the community. She further admitted theat in the FIR Ex.P1, she only raised allegations against the accused Jeevan Mandavi and there was no allegations against other two persons Arun Kumar Nareti and Ramvilas Uike. She also admitted that on the date of incident, the accused persons were roaming here and there in the village and there was a community meeting before her lodging the report. In the community meeting she disclosed that in the night there were in the talab Cra 1476 of 2015 9 which is situated behind her house. She also admitted that the access way to the house where the marriage function is going on is adjacent to the talab. The other two accused persons were friends of Jeevan Mandavi and therefore, they were also with him. She further admitted that in the earlier meeting when the accused Jeevan Mandavi refused to keep her with him, she slapped him. She wanted to live with appellant Jeevan Mandavi but he did not want to keep her with him. Under the pressure of the community persons, they got separated. She also admitted that when she entered her house on the date of incident, she has not closed the door. She could not explain about the place where they stayed in the night with the accused Jeevan Mandavi either it was Korram Kundi jungle or talab. She also could not explain as to whether she has not asked her friend to stay with her when she was having knowledge that the accused persons are following them. She further admitted that the accused Arun Kumar Nareti had not gone to Korram Kundi Jungle, it is also admitted by her that she had not stayed with the appellant at talab which is situated behind her house and the appellant has not committed rape upon her in the talab. She also admitted that from her house up to the jungle she has not made any alarm to save her. She stayed with the accused in the jungle for two nights and one day and in between that they have not taken any food. When they reached to jungle, appellant removed the cloth from her mouth and opened the knot of her hands. Cra 1476 of 2015 10 15. She further stated that even after opening her mouth and hands,she had not raised her voice and raised alarm to call other persons. 16. In para 29 of her cross-examination, she admitted that she wanted to marry with the appellant and appellant took her with him that he will marry her. 17. From the evidence of this witness it clearly transpires that prior to the incident she was having love affair with the appellant Jeevan Mandavi. She resided with him for about a month and under the pressure of the community persons, they got separated. On the date of incident, when she returned back to her house, she did not close the door despite having knowledge that the appellants are following them. She stayed for two nights and one day with the appellant in the jungle and at that time she has not raised any alarm to call any other people. Further she still wanted to marry with the appellant. When she specifically stated that she was residing with the appellant as his wife in his house and under the pressure of the community persons they got separated and she wanted to marry with the appellant, it clearly goes to show that she was having love affair with the appellant and engaged in making consensual physical relation with the appellant and it is only the objection was raised by the Community persons. It has also come on record before lodging FIR there was a community meeting on whose instance victim and the appellant Jeevan Mandavi got separated on the earlier occasion. Cra 1476 of 2015 11 18. In view of her cross-examination and also in view of the allegation made in the FIR it is only against Jeevan Mandavi and subsequent development of allegation against the two other accused persons clearly demonstrates that victim is not fulfilling the criteria of sterling witness as has been required for conviction of the accused persons without any corroboration. 19. 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:- “5.4.2. In Rai Sandeep (2012) 8 SCC 21, this Court had an occasion to consider who can be 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 caliber 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 Cra 1476 of 2015 12 the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to 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 Cra 1476 of 2015 13 qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged." 20. PW2 is the Kotwar of the village. He stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 7.00AM victim came to him and informed the incident that accused persons kidnapped her, took her to the jungle and accused Jeevan Mandavi committed rape upon her. A community meeting was convened in the village and father of the appellant left the meeting and thereafter they lodged the report. In cross-examination, he admitted that before the present incident victim was resided with the appellant in his house as his wife for about 20-25 days. However, due to the differences of their community they made them to reside separated. He also admitted that under the pressure of their community persons Cra 1476 of 2015 14 both of them got separated. He also admitted that the house of the friend of the victim is situated at nearby and if the victim shouted from her house it would be heard to the house of her friend. He also admitted that they lodge report against all three accused persons and if it is not there in the FIR he could not tell the reason. When the victim came to him, no injuries were there on her body. In the meeting victim disclosed that they did not eat any food but drank water from the well situated at Korramgondi. He also admitted that if the victim was suffering from any incident at korramgondi she would have informed the incident to the person who resided there. 21. PW3 Fullsing Koreti is the person who present in the community meeting. He stated in his evidence that on 16.04.2015 a Panchayat meeting was conveyed and he is the representative of Gond Community. The victim belongs to Yadav community and therefore they got the victim and appellant Jeevan Madavi separated, when the victim was residing with the appellant in his house. In the month of May,2015 victim again called a community meeting and informed about the incident. In the village meeting they tried to settle the dispute but the victim and her parents were not convinced. 22. In cross-examination he too admitted that prior to the present incident victim was residing with the appellant Jeevan Mandavi as his wife. He further admitted that in the village meeting victim disclosed that they stayed on the bank of talab for one night and stayed in the jungle for Cra 1476 of 2015 15 one night. He admitted the document Ex.D1 which is the proceeding of community meeting. He could not tell as to whether victim had gone with the appellant on her own will or not. 23. PW5 is the father of the victim. He stated in his evidence that appellant Jeevan Madavi took his daughter with him and thereafter there was a community meeting held consisting of both the communities and in the said meeting victim and appellant Jeevan Mandavi got separated. After few days appellant Jeevan Mandavi kidnapped his daughter and took her towards jungle. After two nights and one day she came to the house of Kotwar and informed the incident. Another meeting was again convened in the village and the appellant denied to keep the victim with him as his wife and then report has been lodged. 24. In cross- examination, the house of Kotwar is ahead of his own house, when the person coming from the jungle. He denied that victim came to his house first and then she had gone to the house of Kotwar. He admitted that victim returned from the marriage function along with her friend. He further admitted that on the instance of the village persons he lodged the report and he also admitted that his daughter has lodged report only on Jeevan Mandavi. He further admitted that when his daughter was went missing, he has not lodged any report with the police persons. 25. PW10 Dr.Bhagyalaxmi Kosma, who medically examined the victim has found her hymen ruptured and she found tenderness and mild Cra 1476 of 2015 16 contusion present on private part of the victim and the victim had recent sexual intercourse. Two slides of her vaginal smear were prepared and handed over to police for their examination, however, the prosecution has not produced any FSL report with respect to presence of semen and sperm on the slides. Since the victim was a major girl she herself had gone and her conduct itself shows that she was a consenting party in making physical relation with the appellant Jeevan Mandavi. The tenderness and mild contusion on her private part does not have any specific significance in the allegation of sexual intercourse and also in view of the fact that she was already resided with the appellant for about a month on the earlier occasion as his wife. There is no external injuries or sign of any resistance found on the body of the victim, which also put her as a consenting party in making physical relation with appellant Jeevan Mandavi. 26. From all these evidences produced by the prosecution, it clearly transpires that initially FIR was lodged only against Jeevan Mandavi and there was no allegation against the co accused Arun Kumar Nareti in the FIR. Allegation against co-accused Arun Kumar Nareti has been developed after about 10 days of the incident when statement of the victim under section 164 CRPC was recorded. The victim was having love affair and wanted to marry with Jeevan Mandavi and on the earlier occasion she resided with him for about a month as his wife. It is only when the community of both the parties are different, the community people does not want to preside them together and on the instance of Cra 1476 of 2015 17 community meeting they got them separated. From the conduct of the victim that she has not raised any alarm and has not called her friend, particularly when she is having knowledge that appellant with his friends are following her, when she along with her friend were returning from the marriage place. Even after entering into her house, she has not close the door of her house and it was remained opened. She stayed with the appellant in the talab for a night, and in Korram jungle for one night. The said talab was situated just behind her house. No any marks of protest and resistance were found on her body. The entire episode shows that she was having love affair with the appellant and wanted to reside with him. However, due to difference of their community the community persons do not want to live them together and then report has been lodged. As it has been also admitted by the witnessess that before lodging the report, a community meeting was convened and on the instance of the community persons, FIR was lodged. 27. 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 - 9 that: “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) Cra 1476 of 2015 18 "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 Cra 1476 of 2015 19 statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration." Having due regard in our mind to the above mentioned settled position in law, we have assessed the entire material on record meticulously.” 28. 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 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. 29. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record and the conduct of the victim clearly demonstrates that she was a consenting party in making physical relation with the appellant-Jeevan Mandavi and the report has been lodged only Cra 1476 of 2015 20 on the instance of community persons. Her evidence does not fulfil the requisites of sterling witness and therefore, her evidence is not sufficient to hold conviction of the accused persons/appellants and they are entitled for benefit of doubt. As a fall out, by giving benefit of doubt, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. They are acquitted from the alleged offences and the impugned judgement of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. 30. Appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for further period of six months as provided under section 481 of BNSS. 31. 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 padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.05.19 13:23:50 +0530