Bemetara, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48391 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 97 of 2022 Rajulal Bandhe S/o Guharam Bandhe, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Gadadih, Police Station - Parpodi, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Parpodi, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System. For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
cannot be relied upon against the appellant, particularly, having considered the facts of the instant case. 13. PW-3, who is mother of victim and PW-4, who is neighbour of the victim have deposed that Victim is a Mahila commando of the village and young lady, therefore, if there would have forceful physical relation with victim by the appellant, then she would have resisted voluntarily, even if appellant had gagged her mouth from his hand, then, she would have beaten his hand, but 7 neither she bite his hand nor bite her other body part or scratched him with her nail, as she has admitted this fact in paragraph 11 of her cross-examination. 14. Further, it there would have any non-consensual relation, then victim would have lodged FIR immediately after the incident in the police station accompanying her husband, instead thereof, she herself run away from her maternal house to her parental place and lodge FIR after three days of the incident. 15. On due consideration of totality of the facts and evidence available on record, it seems that it was consensual relation, but since husband of the victim caught them red handed, therefore, FIR was lodged. 16. In view of foregoing discussion, it is found that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with the evidence available on record and also not in accordance with law, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 17. Consequently, the criminal appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.01.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District Bemetara in Sessions Case No. 49/2020 convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Sections 376 & 450 of the IPC are hereby set aside. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in terms of provisions of Section 481 of the of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 18. Record of the trial Court alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.25 11:26:45 +0530 Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge 8
Arguments
Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate. Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 19/09/2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (henceforth “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.01.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), District Bemetara in Sessions Case No. 49/2020, whereby he has been convicted & sentenced in following manner :- 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 of the Indian Rigorous imprisonment for 10 Penal Code years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. Under Section 450 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.02.2020 at about 11 AM, when victim (PW-1) was alone in her house, appellant, who is her neighbour, went in her house by crossing roof and entered into her room and forcefully raped her by threatening to kill her, at that point of time, husband of victim reached there, hence, appellant run away from the spot and the victim also went to her maternal home where she narrated the entire incident to her mother. Thereafter, on 22.02.2020, written complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed by her in Police Station Parpodi, District Bemetara, based on which, FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged against appellant for the offence under Section 506, 450 & 376 of the IPC. Spot Map (Ex.P-3) was prepared by the police whereas another spot map (Ex.P-4) was prepared by the Patwari. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Samta Rangari (PW-18), in which, vide MLC report (Ex.P-27) she opined that there is no sign of any internal injury or recent forceful intercourse. For definite opinion, she prepared two vaginal slides, packed and 3 sealed and handed over the same for FSL report. Medical examination of accused/appellant was got done by Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-17) vide Ex.P-14. Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-7) of victim was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara. A mobile phone (Samsung), piece of underwear and a sleeper were seized from husband of complainant/victim namely Anil Kumar Banjare (PW-2) vide Ex. P-8. Vaginal slide of victim was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-10). The appellant was arrested on 17.03.2020 vide arrest memo (Ex. P-21). seized piece of underwear, vaginal slide and petticoat of victim was got examined from FSL, in which, vide report Ex.P-24, it was reported that sperm and human spermatozoa were found in Article ‘B’ (slide) & Article ‘D’ (petticoat) of victim seized from her whereas no sperm and human spermatozoa was reported to be found on underwear (Article ‘A’ ) of appellant and underwear (Article “C”) of the victim. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 506, 450 & 376 of the IPC was filed against the accused/appellant, who, in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, thereafter, the case was transferred to the Special Court, Bemetara i.e. trial Court, for trial. 4. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 450, 376 & 506 part II of the IPC and the same was read and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and entered into defence by submitting that he is innocent. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. The statement to the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has not examined any witness in support of his defence. 4 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that appellant and victim are resident of same village and neighbour also. She further submits that the victim is a married lady, aged about 28 years, her medical examination was conducted by Dr. Samta Rangari (PW-18) vide Ex.P-27. She has specifically deposed that there was no sign of forceful sexual intercourse on the person of victim. He further submits though in FSL report (Ex.P-24), sperm and human spermatozoa has been reported to be found in vaginal slide (Article ‘B’) and petticoat (Article ‘D’) of victim, but her vaginal slide was prepared on 22.02.2020 and her petticoat was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6) on 23.02.2020, whereas, date of incident was 19.02.2020. Thus, petticoat and vaginal slide was seized / prepared after about three days and the victim is a married lady, hence, the possibility cannot be ruled out that, in between, she did not have any physical relation with her husband. Hence, FSL report cannot be considered against the appellant / accused. She further submits that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of deposition of victim (PW-1), her husband (PW-2) and Khetharin Bai (PW-4), who is hearsay witness. She further submits that if there would have any forceful physical relation with the victim, then as per statements of Urmila Baghel (PW-03) & Khetharin Bai (PW-4), victim is Mahila Commando, therefore, she can resist, but no any injury is found in her body. Further, she did not immediately lodge FIR, rather present FIR was lodged after three days of the incident, therefore, if there would have any physical relation, the it seems that it was consensual relation, despite that learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences, which is perverse and contrary to the record, hence, the the same is illegal. In view of above, she 5 prays that the instant appeal may be allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as a whole may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that judgment passed by learned Special Court is based on well appreciation of evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference in this appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. As per case of the prosecution and deposition of victim also, time of incident is 11 am and after going to the room of the victim, appellant has committed sexual intercourse with her. She has further deposed the appellant strangled her and threatened her also, but incident revealed that at the same time, husband of the victim came there. Victim herself has stated in her deposition that when appellant was raping her, at that time, her husband reacher there and he had seen the incident, which is also supported by her husband (PW-2). 10. Husband of the victim (PW-2), has stated in his deposition that on being seen the incident by him, appellant/accused run away through roof and while jumping his roof to his own roof, he fell down, which was also seen by his neighbour Kishan Lal, but said Kishan Lal (PW-07) has not supported this fact in his deposition. Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-17), who examined the appellant/accused, has also not stated in MLC report of the appellant or his deposition that any injury was found on his body. 11. Mother of the victim (PW-3) and Kishan Lal (PW-7) are hearsay witness, whom, victim / prosecutrix had allegedly told about the incident, but since they are hearsay witness, hence, their deposition is not much more reliable. 6 12. Victim (PW-1) herself and her husband (PW-2) are the main witnesses with regard to prove the allegation. Victim (PW-1) has deposed that after entering her room, appellant took off his clothes and climbed on her in the bed and raped her, which is also supported by her husband (PW-2) in his deposition. Medical examination of victim/prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Samta Rangari (PW-18), but she did not find any external or internal injuries on her person. She also did not find any symptoms to form a concrete opinion with regard to forceful sexual intercourse with the victim. Ex. P-28 is MLC report prepared by her in respect of medical examination of victim. Thus, the act of rape with the victim does not get support from her opinion, though, she has proved that two slides of vaginal discharge of the victim was prepared by her suggesting it to be medically examined, which was carried out by the prosecution and vide FSL report (Ex.P-24), it has been reported that sperm and human spermatozoa has been found in vaginal slide (Article ‘B’) petticoat (Article ‘D’) of victim, but date of incident of present case is 19.02.2020 and the aforesaid slides were prepared on 22.02.2020 and petticoat was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6) on 23.02.2020. The victim is a married lady, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that after the date of incident, there was no physical relation between her and her husband, in such a situation, FSL report