1 2026:CGHC:16321 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 27-01-2026 09-04-2026 - 09-04-2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 27-01-2026 Judgment delivered on : 09-04-2026 CRA No. 549 of 2007 Kurukshetra Mali S/o Shri Hunnu Mali, aged about 20 years, R/o Dumarpita, Bedipara, Thana Devbhog, Distt. Raipur (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2 9.5.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur in ST No.5/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.8.2006 while the prosecutrix was attending the call of nature in the field, the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereafter ran away. She informed about this incident to her husband and in-laws and thereafter lodged report of Ex.P/1 with the police. During investigation, her medical examination was done, her sari, petticoat and underwear of the accused were seized. After completing the usual investigation charge sheet was filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate against the appellant u/s 376 of IPC followed by framing of charge accordingly by learned trial Court against him. The appellant abjured the charge and prayed for trial. 03. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by the accused in his defence. 3 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that looking to the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, the prosecutrix had ample opportunity to run away from the clutches of the appellant or raise hue and cry to attract attention of the passersby but she did not do so, which clearly suggests that if any such act was committed by the appellant, the prosecutrix was a consenting party to it. In fact, there being political rivalry between the family of the prosecutrix and that of the appellant, a false report has been lodged against the appellant. The husband of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has denied his police statement Ex.D/1. PW-3 mother-in-law of the prosecutrix admits that as the prosecutrix was defamed in the village, therefore, they lodged report with the police. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the overall evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to make out a case u/s 376 of IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable 4 doubt and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and he be acquitted of the said charge. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant would submit that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Section 376 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him under this section as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 09. PW-1 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident she went to the nearby field to attend the call of nature where the accused/appellant came and committed rape upon her. Thereafter she returned home and narrated the incident to her mother-in-law and husband and lodged report Ex.P/1 at the police station. She states that her medical examination was conducted after obtaining her consent as per Ex.P/2 and the police seized her sari and petticoat as per Ex.P/3. 5 In cross-examination she states that the accused is her neighbour and she knows him only since the date of incident. In para 15 she admits that after committing rape the accused wore his clothes and she wore hers and he moved away from there and she returned home. She states that there was mud on her body and clothes and therefore, her husband and mother-in-law got angry at her. In para 16 she admits that after the incident a meeting was held amongst her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and herself throughout the night. Since her husband and in-laws told that if the incident is not reported to the police, they would be defamed in the society, next day she lodged the report. In para 19 she states that Shankar is her uncle-in-law and Lochan is maternal uncle of the accused. Both of them contested Panch election where Lochan won. However, she denies the suggestion that there was any quarrel with regard to this election. She states that she came to the court with her mother-in-law, father-in-law, uncle-in-law Shankar and father. She denies the suggestion that she had sexual intercourse with the accused with her consent. 10. PW-2 husband of the prosecutrix states that on the date of incident his wife/prosecutrix had gone to the field to attend the call of nature and returned weeping. On being asked, she informed that it is the accused/appellant who committed rape on her. In cross-examination he admits that his wife and the accused were known to each other. He denied to have given any statement to 6 the police (Ex.D/1). He states that body of his wife was stained with mud. In para 7 he states that if the society comes to know about this incident, he would be defamed and therefore, next day he along with his father went to police to lodge report. 11. PW-3 mother-in-law of the prosecutrix states that on the date of incident the prosecutrix returned home weeping and on being asked she informed that the accused committed rape on her. In this regard a village meeting was held and on their advice, report was lodged next day. In para 7 of her cross-examination she admits that all the villagers in the village meeting had come to know about sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix. She admits that since her daughter-in-law (prosecutrix) got defamed, report was lodged at the police station. 12. PW-4 Shankar Lal admits his signature on seizure memo Ex.P/3 from B to B part. In cross-examination he admits that he contested Panch election from the village of the accused and maternal uncle of the accused namely Lochan also contested the said election. He states that Lochan won the election, there was quarrel with the family of the accused and 1 ½ months thereafter, report was lodged against the accused. He states that he went with the prosecutrix to police station 7 for lodging report. However, he denies the suggestion that on account of losing the election, a false report was lodged. 13. PW-8 Dr. Anju Sonwane examined the prosecutrix but did not find any internal injury on her body. She noticed only one abrasion near her ear which could be due to fall. She states that she did not see mud on the body and petticoat of the prosecutrix. She advised for chemical examination of petticoat and vaginal slide of the prosecutrix. However, no FSL report is available on record. 14. PW-10 Dr. Ajay Khandekar medically examined the accused/appellant and found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. However, he did not notice any injury on his person. His report is Ex.P/10. 15. Close scrutiny of the statements of witnesses, in particular of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her family members (PW-2 and PW-3) make it clear that after the incident when she returned home, her family members got angry at her and thereafter a social meeting was held in the village. The prosecutrix states that she narrated the incident in Odia language but the report was written in Hindi. She and her family members admitted the suggestion that there was previous enmity between the Shankar Lal, uncle-in-law of the prosecutrix, and Lochan, maternal uncle of the accused as both of them contested election for Panch where Lochan won. The prosecutrix also admitted that her 8 husband and mother-in-law got angry at her and next day she lodged report against the accused. However, in the FIR (Ex.P/1), the cause of delay is mentioned as “flood in the river”. All this establishes a probable motive for false prosecution. 16. The conduct of PW-1 (prosecutrix) appears unnatural and inconsistent with the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse for the reasons that she admits that after the alleged incident, both she and the accused peacefully wore their clothes and left the place without any resistance or alarm. She states that during the incident while protesting she had bitten the hand of the accused whereas PW-10 Dr. Ajay Khandekar who examined the accused did not find any injury on his body. As per prosecutrix and her husband, there were mud stains on her body and clothes whereas no mud stains were found on the body or clothes of the prosecutrix by PW-9 Dr. Anju Sonwane and PW-13 PS Netam, Sub Inspector (IO). Furthermore, the prosecutrix states that she knows the accused only since the date of incident whereas her husband states that the prosecutrix had prior acquaintance with the accused. 17. True it is that ordinarily the evidence of the 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 her evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. It is equally true that while rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the 9 victim, a false allegation of rape causes equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. Indisputably, in a case of sexual assault, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. The present case rests solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, which is not wholly reliable due to contradictions and doubtful conduct. The medical evidence also lends no support to the prosecution case at all. Thus, what emerges from the appreciation of overall evidence is that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the charge under Section 376 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused/ appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of IPC. The appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other offence. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 he is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with 10 one surety 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, he shall on receipt of notice thereon appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 19. 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. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.04.09 13:03:43 +0530