Ankit Rai S/o Pravin Kumar Rai, Aged About 21 Years R/o Bharri Dand, Thana v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Pendra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No.376 of 2016 2025:CGHC:27487 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.27 18:40:39 +0530 CRA No. 376 of 2016 Ankit Rai S/o Pravin Kumar Rai, Aged About 21 Years R/o Bharri Dand, Thana Marwahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Pendra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 24/06/2025 Order on Board 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19/02/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Special Sessions Case No.16/2015 whereby the appellant has been sentence and convicted as under:- 2 CRA No.376 of 2016 Conviction Sentence Under Section 366 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years & fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine,additional R.I. for 1 month. Under Section 376 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years & fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine,additional R.I. for 2 months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 29-7-2014 at 1.00 a.m. a report was lodged by the victim at Marwahi Police Station to the effect that she was studying in Class 10 at Green Valley Convent School, Pendra. On 26-07-2014, after school, she went to her friend Priya Rai's house in Pendra and at about 3 p.m. she went to Azad Chowk Pendra with her friend for a walk where about 3.30 p.m., she met the appellant, who was in a car who told her that it was his birthday and asked her to go with him and would drop her in 10-15 minutes. When the victim refused, the appellant hold her hand and made her sit in the car and took her towards Keonchi and kept roaming around on Gaurela and Keonchi road the whole day. The victim asked the appellant many times to drop her at home but he did not drop her. It is alleged that the appellant took the victim to the house of one Naresh Rai @ Badu of village Bargawan at about 11 p.m. and there he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. On the second day i.e. 27-07-2014 at 5 a.m. the appellant and Naresh Rai @ Badu 3 CRA No.376 of 2016 took the victim on motorcycle and dropped her in front of her friend Priya Rai's house in Pendra. At that time the appellant asked her not to tell anyone about the incident and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. She came to her home in village Bharridor by bus at 9 o'clock. On 28-7-2014, when the victim was suffering from pain, she told her brother and parents about the incident at 10 p.m. Thereafter, offence was registered against the appellant and after due investigation, the appellant was arrested. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 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. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the statement of victim (PW-1), it appears that she was a consenting party. He further submits that had the victim been subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused/appellant against her will, she would have lodged a prompt report and instead of doing so, even she did not disclose the incident to her parents. He further submits that even the ingredients of Section 366 IPC are not 4 CRA No.376 of 2016 attracted in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the there is delay in lodging the FIR, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the whole prosecution story is based on surmises and conjecutres. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the statement of the victim and other witnesses are fully reliable. There are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant is guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant which does not require for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Victim (PW-1), stated in her evidence that she recognize the appellant present in the court and she studies in class 10th in Green Valley Convent School, Pendra. On 26th July, 2014, she went to school and after returning from school, she stayed at the house of her friend/Priya Rai. She along with her friend Priya went to Azad Chowk for a walk, then the accused was coming with his driver and said that it is his birthday and asked her to dance with 5 CRA No.376 of 2016 him and will drop her after 10-15 minutes. She stated that when she refused, the accused forcibly took into the car by holding her hand and were roaming the car in the Keonchi road. She stated that in the evening, she told the appellant to drop her at home, then the appellant agreed and took her to to Vargawa. One Naresh Rai opened the door of his house and the appellant took the victim inside the room and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. She further stated that in the morning, Naresh Rai took someone's motorcycle and thereafter, dropped her at Pendra. After dropping her at 5 o'clock, she went to her friend's house. Thereafter, she returned to her house with her friend and when she felt pain in her whole body, the victim narrated the incident her parents and brother. 8. PW-5, Priya Rai, stated in her evidence that she know the accused Ankit Rai. He lives near her house and the victim is her friend. She and victim study in Green Valley Convent School, Pendra. Her grandparents, uncle and aunt live in Pendra. On 26.07.2014, she along with the victim were returning home from Azad Chowk in the afternoon, thereafter, the accused Ankit Rai came in an car and started forcing the victim to come with him. When the victim refused to sit in the car, the appellant forcibly took in the car by holding her hand and fled away. On the next day, on 27/07/2014 at 7:00-7:30 a.m., the victim came to her house. She did not tell her anything, she was very scared. 6 CRA No.376 of 2016 Thereafter, she dropped the victim to her house in Bharridand. 9. In FSL report vide Ex.P-30, no human sperm was found in the vaginal slide and clothes of the victim. In the medical examination report of victim, no injuries were found over the part of the body of victim. 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the victim (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that on 26/07/2014 the appellant took the victim in the car forcefully and roaming in the car in Keonchi road and from there the appellant took the victim in the house of his friend Naresh Rai and committed sexual intercourse with her at night. On the next morning i.e. 27/07/2014 the appellant dropped the victim and she went to her friend’s house namely Priya Rai(PW-5). On 29/07/2014, FIR was lodged by the victim. 11. It is to be noticed that during the whole incident, the victim has not made any complaint to anyone and has not raised any alarm for a long considerable period. Had she been forcefully raped her against her will or consent, she would definitely raised alarm or to make complaint to the anyone. The victim did shout when the appellant was kept her in car and roaming in the Keonchi road in the evening and when the victim stayed whole night in the house of friend of the appellant, she did not object and shout. Moreover, neither she made complaint to her friend PW-5 against the appellant after coming house nor the victim narrated the incident 7 CRA No.376 of 2016 to her parents on the same day when she reached her home therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant procured the victim with the intention to illicit intercourse or committed rape upon her. Even, the PW-5, friend of the victim did not tell her parents or anyone that the appellant had forcibly took the victim in the car. It appears that the victim is a consent party. Apart from that, FSL report is negative, no human sperm was found in the clothes and vaginal slide of the victim. 12. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 13.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. The appellant is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by him at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear 8 CRA No.376 of 2016 before the higher Court as and when directed. 14. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 15. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep