High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 551 of 2007 Sukh Lal, S/o Kashiram Unraw, aged about 25 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o village Salba, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) Versus ---- Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station – Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : : Mr. Harish Khuntia, Advocate Mr. Pramod Shrivatava, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 11/06/2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.06.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Korea Baikunthpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.50/2006 (old No. 378/2006) convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 IPC & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, plus default stipulation. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that when the prosecutrix 2 was studying in class 6, one day when the school was closed, she had gone to the forest situated far from her house to graze the cattle and when she was returning at 5.00-6.00 p.m., the accused/appellant came to her and asked her to listen something. When the prosecutrix asked what the matter was, the accused/appellant gave her a letter and said to read it at home. It was written in that letter that he liked the prosecutrix very much, he loved her and wanted to marry her. After reading the letter, the prosecutrix tore it. Further case of the prosecution is that thereafter the accused/appellant started meeting her frequently and in between he started talking about marrying her, harassing and said her that if she does not come to meet him then he will consume poison and implicate her. About 3-4 years later, when the prosecutrix was returning at 8:00 p.m., the accused/appellant met her near a Mahua tree and told her to become his wife, he would marry her and established physical relation with her. Thereafter the accused/appellant kept coming to her from time to time and had physical relations with her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix told him to marry her and on one day the accused/appellant put vermilion in the hairline of the prosecutrix. Fearing her family members, the prosecutrix wiped off the vermilion but the accused/appellant kept establishing physical relations with 3 her from time to time and she conceived from the accused/appellant. When the prosecutrix got pregnant, she informed the accused/appellant about this, then the accused/appellant assured her that he would give some pill to abort the pregnancy. Further case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix also met the father of the accused/appellant, gave him all the information about this and requested him to make her his daughter-in-law, which was refused by him. The accused/appellant also did not marry her and not keep her as his wife. Finally, the prosecutrix delivered a child in her house but the accused/appellant did not marry her. On this, a meeting was convened in the village on 24.7.2006, but in the meeting the accused/appellant and his family members refused the child delivered by her as their own and accordingly a panchanama was prepared. On the second day, i.e. on
Legal Reasoning
25.7.2006, the First Information Report (Ex.P-6) was lodged. After obtaining consent of the prosecutrix for her medical examination vide Ex.P-7 and from her mother vide Ex.P-10, the prosecutrix was sent to Community Health Center,
Legal Reasoning
Baikunthpur, where Dr. (Smt.) Kalavati Patel (PW-7) conducted the examination and gave her report under Ex.P- 9 opining that the prosecutrix delivered a child and needs expert opinion & referred to gynecologist. The delivered child was also examined by Dr. Smt. Kalavati Patel (PW-7), 4 who gave her report under Ex.P-5 and she referred the child for examination by a pediatrician, on which Dr. S.L. Chavda (PW-5) medically examined the child and gave his report under Ex.P-5. 3. During investigation, nazri naksha was prepared vide Ex.P- 10. Accused/appellant was arrested under Ex.P-11 and he was sent for medical examination to Community Health Center, Baikunthpur, where Dr. Onkar Kashyap (PW-3) medically examined him and gave his report under Ex.P-3 opining that the accused/appellant is capable of performing sexual intercourse. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant before the jurisdictional Court. 4. After filing of the charge sheet, the trail Court framed the charge under Section 376 IPC against the accused/appellant. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No defence witness was examined by the accused/appellant. 6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has 5 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is against the fact and evidence available on record. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the fact and evidence in its proper perspective and gave wrong and perverse finding. The statement of the complainant itself goes to show that she had been developing physical relation with the accused/appellant for last 4-5 years, as such, she was the consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in holding that the complainant was aged about 16 years without there being any material evidence regarding the age of the complainant on record. The ingredients of Section 376 IPC are completely missing in the case, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused/appellant deserves to be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the learned Sessions Judge minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has has rightly convicted the accused/appellant and there is no infirmity in the same. 6 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The question which arises for consideration before this Court whether the Prosecutrix (PW-6) was below 16 years of age at the time of incident. 11. As per the charge, the learned trial Court framed charge against the accused/appellant on the ground that at the time of incident i.e. in the year 2002-2003, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. It is apparent from the FIR (Ex.P-6) that the date of FIR is 25.07.2006 and occurrence of the incident was mentioned/written in the FIR prior to 3-4 years & the learned trial Court recorded its finding that at the time of registration of FIR, the prosecutrix was aged around 19 years, as such before 3-4 years when the alleged incident occurred, she was minor and thus convicted the accused/appellant. 12. It is clear from the FIR (Ex.P-6) that the prosecutrix delivered a child on 02.07.2006 and the date of FIR is 25.07.2006. 13. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution did not file any oral or documentary evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix and the learned trial Court only on this ground that in FIR (Ex.P-6), the age of the prosecutrix was written as 19 years, straightaway recorded its finding that before 2- 3 years when the alleged incident took place, she as minor 7 and convicted the accused/appellant. It is well settled principle of law that the burden to prove the age of the prosecutrix that on the date of incident she was minor lies on the prosecution but in the present case, no oral or documentary evidence in this regard that on the date of incident the prosecutrix was minor, has been filed. The prosecutrix has stated that when the accused/appellant started talking with her, she was studying in class 6 but her mark list or dakhil kharij register was not produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. Thus, the prosecution utterly failed to prove this fact that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age and according to the FIR (Ex.P-6), at the time of lodgign FIR, the prosecutrix was aged around 19 years and she gave birth to a child on 02.07.2006, which means that before 09 months, she was above 18 years of age but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and gave wrong and perverse finding regarding the age of the prosecutrix to be minor. 14. Thus, it is held that in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix and considering all the attending circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard that the Prosecutrix (PW-6) was below 16 years of age is liable to be set aside. 15. The next question which arises for consideration by this 8 Court is whether the accused/appellant had committed rape with Prosecutrix or she was the consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant and whether reliance on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix (PW-6) should be placed or not. Whether corroboration is essential in rape cases before convicting an accused person ? 16. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar V. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 77 : 2020 SCC Online SC 194 in para 5.4.3 and 5.5 which read thus :- “5.4.3 In Krishan Kumar Malik V. State of Haryana, it is observed and held by this court that 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. 5.5. With the aforesaid decisions in mind, it is required to be considered, whether is it safe to convict the accused solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix? Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality ?” 17. Prosecutrix (PW-6) has stated that she recognized the 9 accused/appellant who is habitant of her village. In the year 2002, she was studying in class 6 and at that time when there was a holiday in the school, she went to the forest to grace the cattle. That day the accused/appellant had also gone to forest to graze the cattle and they had talked with each other. She has also stated that on the day, the accused/appellant had given her a letter and said to read it in house, which she tore and threw there without reading. She has also stated that thereafter the accused/appellant started harassing her and would tell as to why she doesn’t talk to him, he loves her. The accused/appellant continued this act for about one year. The accused/appellant also threatened her that he would apply force if she doesn’t talk with him and also said her to spend night with him. She has also stated that when the accused/appellant used to say this to her daily, she told him that if he do this with her then he will have to accept her. They used to meet near Mahua tree some distance away from her house. She has also went on to state that one day at eventing she went to meet the accused/appellant and the accused/appellant put vermilion on her hairline and said that he has made her his wife, and from that day onward she started having physical relation with the accused/appellant and likewise, the physical relation continued for about two years. In the meanwhile, her menstruation period stopped and she informed the 10 accused/appellant about this on which he said that he would give some pill and thereafter also the accused/appellant continued to have physical relation with her. She has also stated that she had informed about the act of the accused/appellant to his father and in the village also everyone came to know that she was going to become mother of accused/appellant’s child, and after completing 09 months, she delivered a child in the house. She has also stated that after delivery, a panchayat meeting was convened in the village, wherein, the accused/appellant denied that the girl child delivered by her as his child and accordingly a panchanama of the proceeding was also prepared in this regard under Ex.P-1. 18. In Ex.P-1, the statement of accused/appellant was recorded wherein he has specifically denied this fact that the child delivered by the prosecution was not his child. 19. In cross-examination of the prosecution, she has admitted that she did not tell anyone about the love affair with the accused/appellant. It was suggested by the defence that she had illegitimate relation with another boy Vijay Uraon, which was denied by the prosecutrix (PW-6). 20. Mother of prosecutrix (PW-8) has has supported the statement of prosecutrix. 21. Father of prosecutrix (PW-10) has stated that his daughter (PW-6) has one child and his daughter would tell that who is 11 father of her child. 22. Thus, looking to the statement and cross-examination of the prosecutrix (PW-6), it is amply clear that after the birth of child, a village panchayat was convened and thereafter an FIR (Ex.P-6) came to be lodged against the accused/appellant. It is not disputed that in the village panchayat accused/appellant denied his relationship with the prosecutrix (PW-6). 23. The law is well settled that in 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 full confidence of the Court. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis of the evidence of Prosecutrix (PW/6), mother (PW/8), father (PW-10) what emerges is that she was in love with the accused/appellant, she had physical relation with the accused/appellant on number of occasion as a result of which she conceived and delivered a child in the age of 18, which shows that she was consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. The testimony of Prosecutrix (PW/6) does not inspires full confidence of this Court and the same cannot be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant. Thus, in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, it would be difficult for this Court to arrive at definite conclusion that it is the appellant who committed rape with 12 prosecutrix against her will. 24. As discussed above with regard to the truthfulness of the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-6), when examined by the medical evidence of PW-7 and medical report (Ex.P/5 & P- 9), this Court does not find the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-6) to be natural and truthful & the same is not sufficient to hold the accused/appellant guilty. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of course has to go to the appellant. 25. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused appellant Sukh Lal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.06.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koriya (C.G.) are set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him extending benefit of doubt. 26. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS. 27. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Digitally signed pekde by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE