1 2026:CGHC:14309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 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 30.01.2026 25.03.2026 -- 25.03.2026 CRA No. 197 of 2008 Sukhnath S/o Tilakram, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Kunkurikhurd, PS. Sitapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Sitapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, J. C A V Judgment 1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.08.2007 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Distt-Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 227/2006, whereby the Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376(1) of IPC R.I. for 07 years & fine to the tune of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. U/s 450 of IPC R.I. for 07 years & fine to the tune of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. U/s 342 of IPC R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional S.I. for 15 days. U/s 323 of IPC R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional S.I. for 15 days. (All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. According to the prosecution case, as revealed from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, on 15.03.2006 at about 3:00 p.m., during the Holi festival in village Kunkuri khurd, the prosecutrix was alone at her house as her husband went outside to attend nature’s call. At that time, the accused/appellant, accompanied by Dhaneshwar Kanwar, came to the house of the prosecutrix on the pretext of playing Holi. Basanti Kanwar was also present at the house of the prosecutrix at that time. However, after a short while, both Dhaneshwar Kanwar and Basanti Kanwar left the place. 3 The accused/appellant took undue advantage of the opportunity when he found the prosecutrix alone and attempted to close the front door. At that time, Jhonkoram Manjhi and Anganu Bargah from his village arrived to play Holi and witnessed the accused/appellant closing the door from the inside. Thereafter, with an ill will, the accused/appellant threw the prosecutrix on the ground, removed her undergarments, and committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her. When the prosecutrix protested, the accused/appellant beat her and bit her cheeks. Thereafter, the prosecutrix opened the back door of her house and went to her sister’s house. The accused/appellant followed her there, where the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her sister. Upon being rebuked and abused by the sister of the prosecutrix, the accused/appellant fled from the spot. Subsequently, the husband of the prosecutrix came to her sister’s house in search of her, took her back home, and was informed by the prosecutrix about the entire incident. Later, the accused/appellant also threatened the husband of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the prosecutrix has lodged the oral report at Sitapur Police Station. On the basis of the above report, F.I.R vide Ex. P/09 was registered against the accused/appellant by (PW-06) M. R. Nayak, Inspector. 3. During the course of investigation, the Inspector M. R. Nayak went to the incident spot in village Kunkuri Khurd and prepared the spot map vide Ex. P/10 and on the same date for examination of the private parts of the prosecutrix (PW.-4), he took the written consent of the prosecutrix and her husband vide Ex. P/11, sent the application for permission to the SDM as per Ex. P/14 and on the same date, for examination of the private parts of the prosecutrix, an application was given to the lady doctor Sitapur as per Ex. P/15 and for examination of the petticoat and panties received from the 4 prosecutrix, a written application was given to the lady doctor Sitapur as per Ex. P/16. Thereafter, the panties of the prosecutrix were seized at her instance in the presence of witnesses. During examination, the presence of spermatozoa was confirmed, and the sample was seized vide Ex. P/12. Subsequently, on being produced by Constable Ashok, the sealed slide was taken into custody by the doctor vide Ex. P/21. During the course of investigation itself, green coloured bangles etc. were seized in front of witnesses as per Ex.P/02 and statements of witnesses were recorded accordingly and at the instance of the appellant, his old underwear was seized vide Ex. P/03 and for getting the undergarments tested, a complaint was issued to Medical Officer Sitapur vide Ex.P./17 and for gender test of the accused, an application was given to the said Medical Officer vide Ex. P/18 and Ex. P/19. During the investigation itself, the accused was arrested in front of witnesses as per Ex. P/22. 4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 376 (1), 450, 342 and 323 of IPC. The appellant having abjured his guilt was subjected to trial. 5. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in this case. However, no witness has been adduced by the appellant in his defence. 5 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is not only bad and perverse in law but also manifestly wrong leading to a grave miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Court has utterly failed in appreciating and scrutinizing the evidence properly and legally and arbitrarily held the present appellant guilty for the commission of the said offence. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the total evidence on record properly and legally. Learned trial Court has failed to consider that the appellant has not committed any offence which is leveled upon him. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act of the appellant as in the version of the prosecutrix, she stated that the appellant came along with Dhaneshwar to her house and at that time, one Basanti was also with the prosecutrix and the appellant then played Holi with her in the presence of other persons. Further the prosecutrix has stated that after playing Holi, the appellant caught her and dragged her into courtyard, to which she did not raise any hue and cry. Thereafter, the appellant and other persons who were present there fled away. Learned trial Court also failed to appreciate the statement of prosecutrix in para-2, where she categorically deposed that she saw two persons namely Bhoko and Agnu were standing outside from her house and the present appellant again entered into the house of the prosecutrix and forcefully committed sexual intercourse upon her. Learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the statement of 6 prosecutrix in para-9 that her sister’s house is situated just 20-25 steps away from her house and her brother-in-law (देवर) resides just next to her house and despite this she did not raise any hue and cry for help. Looking to the aforesaid facts, it appears that the prosecutrix has ample opportunity to rescue herself, but she did not make any alarm which indicates that there is a free consent. So far as the injuries of the prosecutrix are concerned, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the statement of Dr. PW-02 Smt. Pooja Agrawal who examined the prosecutrix and opined that she did not find any injuries on the body of the prosecutrix and further opined that the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse and no definite opinion was given regarding recent sexual intercourse. Learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the statement of PW-01 Talkeshwar Singh who has very clearly stated that he was apprised on the next day of Holi by the prosecutrix and her husband that the accused came to their house and subjected the prosecutrix to scuffle, on further being asked about the incident, she along with her husband went to Budhan and they have not disclosed that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant, which shows that the actual incident was occurred on the day of Holi and had been the prosecutrix was victimized of rape, she must have disclosed the fact to this witness as he was a Sarpanch at that time. Learned trial Court has arrived at a wrong finding and held the appellant guilty only on the solitary, unsubstantiated statement of the prosecutrix. There is no cogent or reliable evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellant, hence the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The ingredients of alleged offences are not attracted against the appellant. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed upon the appellant is harsh and excessive looking to the facts and circumstances as 7 well as material available on record, thus it is liable to be set aside/quashed. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidences and documents produced before it in its proper perspective, thus, the conviction of the appellant is bad-in-law. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 8. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443, this Court’s decisions in the matter of Sukh Lal vs. State of Chhattisgarh delivered in CRA No. 551 of 2007, in the matter of Mani Mohan Roy vs. State of Chhattisgarh delivered in CRA No. 518 of 2007. 9. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and thereby rightly convicted the appellant for the alleged offences, as such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference by this Court. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 11. It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellant for offence under Sections 450, 342, 376(1) and 323 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid charges and sentenced him as described in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 8 12. Prosecutrix (PW-04) stated that on 15.03.2006 at about 3:00 p.m., during the Holi festival in village Kunkuri khurd, the prosecutrix was alone at her house as her husband went outside to attend nature’s call. At that time, the accused/appellant, accompanied by Dhaneshwar Kanwar, came to the house of the prosecutrix on the pretext of playing Holi and the present appellant applied colour on her body. Basanti and others were also watching. Thereafter, the present accused/appellant held her hand, took her towards the courtyard and held her tight in his arms. The prosecutrix held her head down at that time, then the present accused/appellant pulled her by her hair and then the accused/appellant took a pocket camera from his pant and told Dhaneshwar to take a photo. However, after a short while, all three of them left the place. The accused/appellant entered the house of the prosecutrix attempted to close the front door. At that time, Jhonkoram Manjhi and Anganu Bargah from his village arrived to play Holi and witnessed the accused/appellant closing the door from the inside to which the accused/appellant told them that he would give liquor to them if they be silent. Thereafter, with an ill will, the accused/appellant threw the prosecutrix on the ground, removed her undergarments, and committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her. When the prosecutrix protested, the accused/appellant beat her and bit her cheeks. Thereafter, the prosecutrix opened the back door of her house and went to her sister’s house. The accused/appellant followed her there, where the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her sister. Upon being rebuked and abused by the sister of the prosecutrix, the accused/appellant fled from the spot. Thereafter, the husband of the prosecutrix came in search of her and took her back home and then she narrated the entire incident to her husband and, thereafter she lodged F.I.R. vide Ex. P/01 and in para 08 of her cross-examination, she admitted that her 9 first marriage was solemnized at peth, second marriage was solemnized at Bakalo and her third marriage was solemnized with the present husband. In para 09 of her cross-examination, she admitted that despite her brother-in- law living next door, she neither raised an alarm nor attempted to flee to his residence while the alleged sexual assault was occurring. In para 11 of her cross-examination after coming back from her sister’s house, she narrated the entire incident to her husband and she apprised the entire incident on the next date to the Sarpanch. She further denied the suggestion of the prosecution that the prosecutrix falsely implicated the accused/appellant in the crime-in-question as the accused/appellant refused to marry with her. 13. PW-01 Talkeshwar Singh has stated that on the next date of Holi, the prosecutrix and her husband told him that the accused/appellant beaten them and they did not state regarding forcible sexual intercourse with him. He admitted his signature on spot map vide Ex. P/01 and seizure memos vide Ex. P/02 & Ex. P/03. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross- examined him, but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution and denied this fact that the prosecutrix told him about the forcible sexual intercourse. 14. PW-02 Smt. Pooja Agrawal examined the prosecutrix but she did not find any external or internal injury and opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding recent sexual intercourse and gave her report vide Ex. P/05. She also prepared vaginal slide and sent the same for chemical examination, but there is no such F.S.L. report filed by the prosecution before the learned trial Court. 10 15. The prosecutrix has stated that she lodged F.I.R. on the next day and it is clear from the F.I.R. report vide Ex. P/09 that as per the same F.I.R., the incident happened on 15.03.2006 at about 3 pm and the F.I.R. was lodged on 16.03.2006 at 1:15 pm. The prosecutrix further stated in para 04 of her statement that her husband went in search of her, then she came back home with her husband after taking assurance from him of getting not to be beaten by him and she did not tell to anyone regarding this. The prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief has stated that the accused/appellant made her fall on the ground, bit her with his teeth and in that process she got her elbow injured, but Dr. Smt. Pooja Agrawal (PW-02) did not find any external or internal injuries. PW-01 Talkeshwar Singh has not supported the prosecution case, the prosecution did not examine the husband as well as the sister of the prosecutrix. 16. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter reported in 2012 (8) SCC 21, held in paras 21, 22 & 32 which reads as under:- “21. The other discrepancies which are to be mentioned are the categorical statement of the prosecutrix (PW 4) herself that after the alleged forcible sexual intercourse by both the accused, she wiped off her private parts with a red-coloured sock which was lying in the house, though at another place it was stated that both the accused used the red-coloured sock to wipe off their private parts after the commission of the offence Assuming both the versions to be true, we find that the red -coloured sock sent for chemical examination revealed that it did not contain any semblance of semen in it as per the FSL report, Exhibit PW- 14/N. It was also pointed out that while according to her the sock was handed over to the police in the hospital when the petticoat and the sock were seized from her, according to the seizure memo the sock was recovered from the place of occurrence. She was a married woman and except for the semen found on the petticoat, there is no other reliable evidence for implicating the appellant-accused to the crime alleged against them. In this background, when we refer to the oral version of the prosecutrix (PW 4), as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, very many facts which were not found in her original statement were revealed for the first time before the court. 11 22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre 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 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 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 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 "starting witness whose version can be heated by the be called as a starting witneion and based on which the witness can be court without any corroprecise, the version of the said witness on the Coreshed to be on 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. 32. In the decision in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryanas in respect of the offence of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, it has been held as under in paras 31 and 32: (SCC p. 138) "31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences. 32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant.’’ 12 17. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Prasad Alias Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2020 (3) SCC 443, held in paras 5.4.2 & 5.5 which reads as under:- “ 5.4.2. In Ral Sandeep, 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 calibre 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 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 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 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 the core co 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 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.” 5.5. With the aforesaid decisions in mind, it is required to be considered, whether 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?” 18. In light of the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that the testimony of the prosecutrix lacks corroboration from the medical evidence. Furthermore, neither the sister nor the husband of the prosecutrix was examined by the 13 prosecution, and the independent witness did not support the prosecution’s case. Additionally, no F.S.L. report has been produced on record. It is also admitted by the prosecutrix in para 15 of her cross-examination that the police personnel had instructed her not to falsely implicate anyone. Accordingly, the testimony of the prosecutrix appears unreliable and untrustworthy. 19. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2007 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Sections 376 (1), 450, 342 and 323 of IPC. 20. 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/- in the like amount 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. 21. 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/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE U.K. Raju