Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.751 of 2007 Judgment reserved on : 08.05.2025 Judgment delivered on : 22.07.2025 Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 1 - Gaya Prasad @ Buchu, aged about 36 years, S/o Keshavram Sahu, R/o Sahupara, Dhamdha, PS Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) versus Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate Mr. Devesh Kela, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.08.2007 passed by the learned Session Judge, Durg (C.G.) in ST No.76/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with default 2 stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.02.2007 at about 7 pm, when the prosecutrix had gone to keep stick wooden, she was caught by the appellant and was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant against her will. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecutrix was aged about 45 years at at the time accident, as such it is not possible for the appellant to commit rape with her against her will. She also admitted in her cross-examination that she tried to stop the appellant by using nails upon him, but no such injury was found on the body of the appellant. The doctor has also not supported the same. She further submits that the prosecutrix is the consenting party and a false case was registered against the appellant, but despite the same the appellant has wrongly been convicted. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 376 (1) of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted under Section 376, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that on the date of incident, when she went to keep wood on the field, the accused being already there caught her hand and threw her on dry grass and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she screamed, her husband came there and then they beat the accused, thereafter the accused ran away, thereafter they lodged report before the Police Station concerned. 8. PW-2 husband of the prosecutrix also stated that when her wife had gone to keep wood on the field, the accused being already there caught her hand and threw her on dry grass and was committing forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she screamed, he went there hastily and then he beat the accused and prosecutrix both, thereafter the accused ran away and on his 4 asking whether the accused has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her or she did on her own and upon her replying that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, thereafter they lodged report before the Police Station concerned. 9. Dr. Geeta Bhagat (PW-4) examined the prosecutrix. She did not find any external or internal injuries. She found bleeding in private part of the prosecutrix, but she opined that this bleeding was due to menstrual cycle. She gave her report (Ex-P/9). In the cross-examination, she admitted that if the sexual intercourse is committed against the will of a rural girl and the struggle is going on between them, then marks of struggle can come. She also admitted that she did not find any marks of struggle in the body of the prosecutrix. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, held in para 15 as under:- “15. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber 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 5 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 everyone 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 similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose 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 the core 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.” 11. In light of the above, it is clear from the statements of prosecutrix (PW-1) and husband of the prosecutrix (PW-2) that when the husband of the prosecutrix saw his wife and the appellant in compromise position, he beaten the accused and prosecutrix both, thereafter lodged FIR against the appellant. PW-4 Dr. Geeta Bhagat also did not find any internal or external injuries on the body of the deceased, as such the statements of the prosecutrix are not reliable and trustworthy and it cannot be ruled out that she is not the consenting party to the act of the appellant. 6 Thus, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable.
Decision
12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the offence under Section 376 (1) of IPC. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 14. 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/- 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. 15. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Nirala Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge