Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.07.23 18:51:38 +0530 2025:CGHC:34549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 371 of 2016 1 - Sanju Wadhwani S/o Anand Kumar Wadhwani Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Near Shetla Mandir, Manendragarh, P.S. Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Adil Minhaj, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent/State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) 2 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 of IPC & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim lodged a report on 20/5/20215 against the appellant to the effect that prior to one year from the date of report, when she was alone in the house at about 7-8 pm the appellant entered into her house and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully and when she tried raise alarm the accused gagged her mouth and told her that he will marry her. However, when he refused to marry her she narrated the incident to her parents and siblings and thereafter lodged the report. 3. On the basis of the said report, FIR has been registered by the Police Station Manendragarh and after completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2((v) of the Atrocities Act, 1989. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the the circumstances appearing 3 against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No defence witness was examined by the accused/appellant. 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has acquitted the accused/appellant from the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2((v) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 and convicted him under Section 376 of the IPC as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 6. 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 corporeal relation with the accused/appellant without any force or coercion as such, she was the consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. Learned counsel further submits that learned trial Court has failed to realize that the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix was itself delayed by 1 year and 4 there is no evidence of any such incident. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that even the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and have given their own version of the incident which is completely contradictory and does not inspire any confidence. 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. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the learned Special Judge minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the accused/appellant and there is no infirmity in the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The question which arises for consideration by this 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-1) should be placed or not. 5 Whether corroboration is essential in rape cases before convicting an accused person? 10. 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 sufÏcient 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?" 6 11. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that she knows the accused for about a year. She stated that when her father was ill at that time the accused came and took her father in his car for exorcism (झा(cid:2)ड़-ूር(cid:5) (cid:6) क) and thereafter, he used to visit her house. She stated that after two weeks when she was alone at her home, her mother and sister had gone out to work and her father was admitted in the hospital, at about 8:00 Pm the accused came to her house; caught hold of her; threw her on the ground; removed her knickers; and thereafter forcefully commit the sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that when she tried to raise alarm, the appellant gagged her mouth and stated that he will marry her. Thereafter, he declined to marry her. 12. In Cross-examination at para 10 she has admitted that she had a love affair with the accused/appellant and has also accepted that the accused used to come her house regularly. She further admitted that she had corporeal relation with the accused. She also admitted that, if the accused had not refused to marry her she would not have reported against him. She has further admitted in para 17 of his cross examination that accused came to her house about 50-60 7 times in a year, but her parents did not object and nobody knew the fact about their relationship. She further admitted that she kept meeting the accused/appellant secretly throughout the year and she used to meet the accused outside her house. The victim herself stated that the accused refused to marry her, so she lodged the FIR against him. 13. (PW-2), mother of the victim, has stated in her cross examination that accused had been coming to her house for last two years. She further admitted the fact that accused was in love affair with her daughter (victim) for two years. She further admitted that victim asked the accused to construct the house for her. 14. 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/1), mother (PW/2) what emerges is that she was in love affair with the accused/appellant, she had physical relation with the accused/appellant on number of occasions, which shows that 8 she was consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. The testimony of Prosecutrix (PW/1) does not inspires full confidence of this Court and the same cannot be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant. 15. As discussed above with regard to the truthfulness of the evidence of the victim (PW-1), when examined by the medical evidence of (PW-4) Dr. Archana Kumhare and medical report (Ex. P/7), it shows that there is no external and internal injury over the body of the victim, which could lead to the conclusion that the victm was raped forcefully and while examining the victim it is found that hymen membrane to be old and she is found to be habitual in sexual intercourse. 16. In view of foregoing, this Court does not find the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) to be natural and truthful & the same is not sufÏcient to hold the accused/appellant guilty. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of course has to go to the appellant. 17. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused/appellant Sanju Wadhwani is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2016 passed by 9 the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) are set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him extending benefit of doubt. 18. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS. 19. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Shoaib (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge