1 CGHC010086082022 2026:CGHC:34096-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 460 of 2022 1 - Shankar Yadaw S/o Itbal Yadaw Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Sonpur, Sukbasoopara, Police Station- Kapu, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sohan Chouhan Chauhan S/o Balakram Chauhan Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Sonpur, Sukbasoopara, Police Station- Kapu, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.10 16:30:39 +0530 2 2. The present Criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge {Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act)} Raigarh, in Special Criminal Case under the Atrocities Act No. 44/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 376-D of the IPC and sentenced for RI for 20 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for six months, to both the appellants. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 12.06.2019, the victim PW/1 had gone to the house of (xxx) along with her minor child. At about 8-9 PM, when she was returning from there, on the way the appellants met her, who dragged her towards the field adjacent to the road, and the appellant Sohan Chouhan committed rape upon her. Appellant Sankar Yadaw facilitated by holding her hands. When the victim shouted for help, and her minor child was also crying, her husband came on the spot, and then both the appellants fled away. The victim informed her husband about the incident, and a panchayat meeting was also convened; thereafter, the written report (Ex-P/1) was lodged. FIR (Ex-P/2) was registered against the appellants for the offence under Section 376-D of the IPC, and the victim was sent for her medical examination to Govt. Hospital, Dharamjaigarh; since no lady doctor was available at the hospital, she was referred to KGH Hospital, Raigarh, where she was medically examined by PW-9 Dr. Swapnil Wilson, who gave her report Ex-P/14. While medically examining the victim, the doctor did not notice any external injuries on her body. Two vaginal slides were prepared, sealed and handed over to the Police for 3 her examination, and she opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding recent sexual intercourse. She advised sonography and pregnancy test. The 164 CrPC statement of the victim (Ex-P/4) was also recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda. The social status certificate (Ex-P/6) of the victim has also been seized vide seizure memo (Ex-P/5). The spot map (Ex-P/7) was prepared by the Police and (Ex-P/9) was prepared by the Patwari. Two Hawai Chappals have been seized from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex-P/8). The appellant Sankar Yadaw was arrested on 15.06.2019, and he was sent for his medical examination to Govt Hospital, Vijaynagar, where he was medically examined by Dr. Vinod Kumar Jaiswal (PW/7), who gave his report (Ex-P/13). While medically examining the appellant Sankar Yadaw, the doctor did not notice any external injuries on his body and found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. The vaginal slides of the victim and her underwear were sent for chemical examination to the regional FSL, Bilaspur, from where the report has been received and semen and sperm were found present on the sent articles. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC has also been recorded, and since the accused Sohan Chouhan was absconding, a charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons for the offence under Section 376-D of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SC/ST Act”), showing the appellant Sohan Chouhan absconding. The learned trial Court issued a permanent arrest warrant against the accused Sohan Chouhan vide order dated 05.09.2019. 4 4. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the appellant Sankar Yadaw Yadav for the offence under Section 376-D of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The appellant Sankar Yadaw denied the charge and claimed trial. During the trial, the absconding accused Sohan Chouhan was arrested in compliance of the permanent warrant of arrest issued against him, and he was produced before the learned trial Court on 11.01.2020. The charge against the accused Sohan Chouhan for the offence under Section 376-D of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act has been framed by the learned trial court vide order dated 13.02.2020. He has also denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses; statements of the appellants under Section 313 of CrPC have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appear against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and they have been convicted under Section 376-D of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; particularly the evidence of the victim (PW/1) suffers from various inconsistencies and her conduct itself is suspicious. He would also submit that although, in the offence of gang rape, the consent of the victim cannot be presumed, in the present case, it is not a gang rape but projected as a 5 gang rape. The victim (PW/1) herself has stated that the appellant Sankar Yadaw Yadav did nothing with her and it is the appellant Sohan Chouhan who had physical relation with her. He would further submit that the conduct of the victim clearly demonstrates that she was having an affair with the accused Sohan Chouhan and engaged in consensual physical relation, and it is only when her husband saw them in a compromising position then he pressurized his wife for lodging the report against the accused persons. There is no sign of any protest or struggle found on the body of the victim, who was immediately examined by the doctor. He would submit that the place of the incident is the place adjacent to the road in the village, and if she had raised any alarm, the villagers must have heard her noise, which is missing in the present case. The presence of the houses near the place of incident is admitted by the victim in her evidence, yet there are no efforts made by the victim to raise an alarm at the time when she was allegedly dragged by the appellants towards the field. He would also submit that though in the FSL report semen and sperm were found, however, in view of the marital status of the victim, the same does not have any significance in the present case. The evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellants are entitled to acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions and would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but for minor omissions and contradictions, the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for the alleged offence. He would further submit that 6 even if the appellant Sankar Yadaw has not had physical relation with the victim, he facilitated the other accused Sohan Chouhan in dragging the victim towards the field, where the appellant Sohan Chouhan committed rape upon her. The act of the appellant Sankar Yadaw as well as Sohan Chouhan squarely falls under the definition of gang rape, and thus, there should be no consent by the victim even if she was having an affair with the appellant Sohan Chouhan. The evidence of PW/2, the husband of the victim, is corroborated by the evidence of the victim, that after hearing her noise when he reached on the spot, he saw that the appellant Sohan Chouhan was committing rape upon the victim. Absence of injuries on the body of the victim does not dilute the offence of the appellants, as injuries are not always necessary to be found on the body of the victim of rape and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence of the victim as well as her husband is fully reliable and sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence of gang rape and therefore, their appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned trial Court with utmost 10.PW/1 is the victim in the case. She stated in her evidence that at the time of the incident, due to the dispute with the husband, she stayed in the house of (xxx). Her other children were in the house of her husband and therefore, on the date of the incident at about 7-8 PM, she was going to the house of her husband to meet them. On the way, the appellants dragged her towards the field where the appellant Sohan Chouhan committed rape upon her; however, the appellant Sankar Yadaw did nothing to her. At the time of the incident, her minor 7 child was sitting beside her, and when her child shouted, her husband, who was searching for her, came on the spot on hearing the noise of her child. After seeing her husband, the appellant Sohan Chouhan fled away from the spot, whereas the appellant Sankar Yadaw remained on the spot. Thereafter, she lodged a written report to the Police (Ex-P/1). Her statement was also recorded before the Magistrate at Gharghoda (Ex-P/4), and then the Police proceeding were started. When questions were asked by the Court about the act of the appellant Sankar Yadaw, she replied that while committing sexual intercourse by appellant Sohan Chouhan, the appellant Sankar Yadaw had not caught hold of her hand. In cross-examination, she admitted that the place where the appellant Sohan Chouhan had physical relation with her had 40-50 houses of others. She further admitted that if any person shouted from the place of incident, the persons of the vicinity could easily hear the noise. She further admitted that the appellant Sohan Chouhan and Sankar Yadaw were in a drunken state at the time of the incident and she also admitted that Sankar Yadaw neither caught hold of her nor committed any act with her. She also stated that at the time when Sohan Chouhan was dragging her, she shouted for help. She admitted that at a distance of 10 paces, the houses of others were there in which 4 persons were residing. The place where appellant Sohan Chouhan caught hold of her, there were 6-7 houses, but she could not know the names of the persons who were residing. She further admitted that she had not shouted that the appellant Sohan Chouhan was dragging her. Though she stated that the appellant Sankar Yadaw was also there with him, both of them were in a drunken state. She further stated that the written report (Ex-P/1) has not been scribed by 8 her and she could not tell as to who scribed it. She further admitted that she did not know what is written in the documents Ex-P/1 and P/2. In her further cross-examination, she admitted that the appellant Sankar Yadaw did nothing with her and the same has been disclosed by her in the Panchayat meeting also. She further admitted that since Sankar Yadaw has not supported her, she had a grudge against him also. Before the incident, she was having a good relationship with the appellant Sankar Yadaw. She also stated that in her statement recorded before the Magistrate, she disclosed that the appellant Sankar Yadaw did nothing with her and admitted that since Sankar Yadaw did nothing with her, he has not fled away from the place. She further admitted that the relation between her and her husband was not good and whenever her husband committed marpeet with her she took shelter in the house of one villager. She admitted that at the time when the appellant Sohan Chouhan was dragging her, she had not tried to save herself by throwing her minor child. She also admitted that when her husband came on the spot, she had not asked him to catch the appellant Sohan Chouhan. She denied the suggestion given by the defence that she had not protested the incident. In further cross- examination, she admitted that the appellant Sohan Chouhan was in a highly drunken state on the date of the incident. She also admitted that she did not have any injury on her private part but had received injury on her left wrist. She further admitted that at the time of the incident she had not given any scratch mark on the body of appellant Sohan Chouhan. She also described the manner in which the appellant Sohan Chouhan prepared for sexual intercourse with the victim regarding removal of his and her clothes. From the evidence of the victim, and 9 the manner in which the appellant Sohan Chouhan made physical relation with her, the conduct of the victim as well as the suggestion given by the defence about affair between them, the resistance which was required to be taken by the victim but has not taken by her, the manner in which the appellant Sohan Chouhan removed his and her cloths, the dispute between the victim and her husband and all other surrounding circumstances would goes to show that the she was the consenting party in making physical relation with the appellant Sohan Chouhan. When the victim admitted in her evidence that the appellant Sankar Yadaw neither caught hold of nor did anything with her, the appellant Sankar Yadaw facilitated the accused Sohan Chouhan in committing rape upon the victim and thereby both the accused persons committed gang rape upon her. There is no sufficient evidence against the appellant Sankar Yadaw that he in any manner facilitated the accused Sohan Chouhan in committing sexual intercourse with the victim, which comes under the definition of gang rape; rather, it comes on record that the victim was involved in consensual physical relation with Sohan Chouhan and coincidentally her husband came there. 11.Another aspect of the case, which makes her evidence doubtful is that in her evidence the victim stated that in the morning there was dispute between her and her husband and she took shelter in the house of (xxx) and in the evening when she returning to the house on the way the appellants committed the offence and at the time when the appellant Sohan Chouhan committing physical relation with her, on hearing the noise of her minor child, her husband, who was in her search came there and saw the incident. From the evidence of her husband PW/2, it also discloses that there was a dispute between him 10 and his wife, i.e., the victim. When the victim left her husband in the morning and her husband did no try to search her in all day and only on that particular time, he started searching and reached on the spot by saying that he was on search of her wife and upon hearing crying of his son reached on the spot is not believable. Particularly, in view of the fact that a number of houses are situated adjacent to the place of the incident, as has been admitted by the victim PW/1 and reflected from the document of spot map (Ex-P/7). The entire evidence of the victim does not inspire confidence in this Court with respect to the allegation made by her against the appellants. 12.In the case of Raju Vs. State of MP (2008) 15 SCC 133 in para 11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “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.” 13.PW/2, who is the husband of the victim, has stated in his evidence that at the time of the incident, when he was in search of his wife, he heard the noise of his son and when he proceeded towards the place, he saw that the appellant Sohan Chouhan committing rape upon his wife. He 11 caught hold of the appellant Sankar Yadaw; however, the appellant Sohan Chouhan fled away. A village meeting was convened on the next day, and then a report was lodged. In cross-examination, he admitted that before the incident, he and the accused persons had arranged a liquor party in which the sarpanch was also there, and all of them consumed liquor excessively. He returned to his own house and left the appellants at the place where they consumed liquor. When he came back to his house, he found his house locked and his wife was not present there; then he immediately started searching for her. He further admitted that between the place where they consumed liquor and his house, there was a dense locality and persons were residing there. He further admitted that when he reached on the spot, only his child was crying and his wife was not making any noise or any protest. He admitted that his wife and the appellant Sohan Chouhan were in a compromising position and the accused Sankar Yadaw was lying at a considerable distance in a drunken state. He further admitted that the appellant Sankar Yadaw had not fled away from the place but was murmuring in the place. He further admitted that his wife had not informed him that the appellant committed rape upon her. From his further cross-examination, it clearly reveals that on the date of the incident, this witness, along with the accused persons and the sarpanch, consumed liquor, and during the consumption of liquor, this witness left the appellants there and came back. And when he could not find his wife in the house, he started searching for her and saw that the appellant Sohan Chouhan was committing rape upon his wife. He admitted that he did not know about any love affair between his wife and the appellant Sohan Chouhan. From the evidence of this witness, 12 it reflected that when he returned to his house after consuming liquor, he did not find his wife and his house was locked; then he started searching for her. As per the evidence of PW/1, she left her husband in the morning and returned in the evening when the alleged offence is set to have been committed. Both these sets of evidence are inconsistent and make their evidence doubtful. 14.PW/4 is the person who is also the resident of the vicinity; he stated in his evidence that at the time of the alleged incident, the accused Sankar Yadaw was being taken to him by his elder brother and two other persons. They were scuffling, and the husband of the victim informed him that the appellant Sankar Yadaw was consuming liquor with his wife and therefore, on suspicion, he took her with him; he convinced him to go to his house and called a village meeting on the next day. In the village meeting, the victim disclosed that the appellant Sankar Yadaw did nothing with her. This witness turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. 15.PW/6 is the person who accompanied PW/2 when he was searching his wife. When they had gone towards the place from where the noise was coming, he saw that the victim was lying on the floor and both the accused persons were setting near thereby. The victim was also in a drunken state, and thereafter, he and PW/2 took the appellant Sankar Yadaw to the house of the Sarpanch. In the house of the Sarpanch, the victim informed about the incident. This witness too has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case, though, in his examination-in-chief he stated that he was with the husband of the victim at the time he was searching her; however, the husband of the 13 victim (PW/2) has not disclosed in his evidence that at the time of search of his wife this witness PW/6 was also with him. 16.From all this evidence, there are material inconsistencies surfaced in the evidence of the witnesses, which make the evidence of the victim as well as other evidence require corroboration. 17.Though, the evidence of the victim should not be suspected and should be believed as her evidence has to be evaluated on a part with that of an injured witness and if her evidence is reliable no corroboration is necessary, however, in the present case, her evidence is not found reliable on the material point out allegation, the conduct of the victim as well as her husband, the place of occurrence and the manner in which she was prepared for sexual intercourse by the appellant Sohan Chouhan and also that the evidence of PW/6 who saw her in drunken condition lying on the spot and also in view of the evidence of PW/2 that just before the alleged incident both the appellants and the Pw/2 and Sarpanch of the village consumed liquor excessively together and the husband of the victim left the appellants on the same place and came back. 18.From the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient evidence which proves the alleged offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take place the prove, and the evidence and circumstances of the case disclose suspicious circumstances and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 19.In the case of Digamber Vaishnav and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where two views are possible, arising based on the 14 same evidence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken into consideration, and the accused should be given the benefit of doubt. In para 19, it has been held that:- “19. It is also well-settled principle that in criminal cases, if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one binding to the guilt of the accused and the other is to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused, should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence [See Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808]” 20.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The conviction and sentence against the appellants are set aside, and they are acquitted of the alleged offence. 21.The appellant Sankar Yadaw Yadaw is reported to be in jail since 16.06.2019, and the appellant Sohan Chouhan Chauhan is reported to be in jail since 11.01.2020. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 22.Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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 15 appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23.The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika