HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.2265 of 1999
Judgment Reserved on : 13.7.2018
Judgment Delivered on : 9.10.2018
Chandrahas Verma, aged 38 years, son of Mahranram Verma, resident of
Chherkapur, P.S. Palari, District Raipur, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh)
The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)
For Appellant : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Ramakant Pandey, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.8.1999
passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District
Raipur in Sessions Trial No.67 of 1999 convicting and sentencing
the Appellant as under:
Under Section 376 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for
Indian Penal Code 10 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 21.12.1998 at about 9:00
a.m., the prosecutrix (PW1), a married woman aged about 32
years, was sitting in a field for attending the call of nature.
Allegedly, the Appellant came there, caused her to fall down and
started committing rape with her. When she pushed him away and
refused, the Appellant did not stop and continued to commit rape
with her. Having heard her voice, her husband Ramnath (PW3)
reached there. Having seen Ramnath there, the Appellant ran
away. The prosecutrix and her husband told about the incident to
other family members in their house and also to other villagers.
Next day, the prosecutrix made a written report (Ex.P1). On the
basis of the report, First Information Report (Ex.P2) was registered.
The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Rama Tiwari
(PW7). Her report is Ex.P14 in which she did not find any injury on
the body of the prosecutrix. She found the prosecutrix to be
habitual to sexual intercourse. No definite opinion could be given
regarding recent sexual intercourse with her. Underwear of the
Appellant was seized vide Ex.P6. Petticoat of the prosecutrix was
seized vide Ex.P4. Statements of witnesses were recorded under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of
the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant for
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Charge was framed against him under Section 376 of the Indian
3. To rope in the Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 9
witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the guilt and pleaded
innocence. No witness has been examined in his defence.
4. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as
mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that the
Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to a previous
enmity. First Information Report was lodged after 1 day of the
alleged incident, but the delay has not been explained properly.
The FIR is an after-thought report. From the evidence on record,
no offence is made out. Even if any such offence had taken place,
the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The report was made
because the husband of the prosecutrix had witnessed the
prosecutrix in compromising position with the Appellant.
6. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for the State
supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.
7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record minutely.
8. The prosecutrix (PW1) has stated in her Court statement that at
the time of incident, i.e., at about 8 a.m., she was beginning to sit
for attending the call of nature. At that time, the Appellant came
there. He removed her clothes, mounted over her and committed
sexual intercourse with her against her will. On her shouting, her
husband reached there. Having seen her husband there, the
Appellant ran away. Thereafter, her husband took her home. He
called some persons at home and informed them about the
incident. Thereafter, she went to the police station and submitted a
written report. In her cross-examination, in paragraph 5, she has
stated that the Appellant caught her both hands and made her lie
down and after removing her clothes mounted over her. She has
further stated that at that time she had a gundi (a utensil) with her.
She did not assault the Appellant with that gundi nor did she
scratch the Appellant with her nails. She also did not pull his hair
nor did she bite him with her teeth. She has further stated that she
was continuously refusing the Appellant, but he did not stop and
continued to commit sexual intercourse with her. At that time, her
husband reached there. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of her cross-
examination, she has also admitted that she does not know what
was written in the written complaint (Ex.P1). A police official had
written her complaint in his handwriting to which her husband had
9. Ramnath (PW3), husband of the prosecutrix has deposed that at
the time of incident, he was breaking a branch of a tree for the
purpose of using the same as tooth-brush. He heard some noise
from the nearby place. He saw here and there and moved ahead
towards that place. Having reached that place, he saw that the
Appellant had mounted over his wife (the prosecutrix). Having
seen him, the Appellant ran away from there. During his cross-
examination also, this witness has admitted that he saw that the
Appellant had mounted over the prosecutrix, both the hands of the
prosecutrix were spread down and having seen him, the Appellant
fled from there. He has also admitted the fact that he did not
chase the Appellant. In paragraph 4 of his cross-examination, he
has admitted that Police Station Palari was 5-6 Kms. away from his
village. He has further stated that when they went to the police
station, the police officials had interrogated him and that
interrogation was recorded in writing by one witness Moti and he
(this witness) had got that written matter typed on which his wife
(the prosecutrix) had only put her signature.
10. Sunder (PW4), father-in-law of the prosecutrix and Motilal (PW2)
are residents of same village Chherkapur in which the prosecutrix
and her husband were residing. Both have stated that the
husband of the prosecutrix had told them that rape was committed
with the prosecutrix. Ramkrishna (PW5) has not supported the
case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile.
11. Dr. Rama Tiwari (PW7) examined the prosecutrix on 24.12.1998.
Her report is Ex.P14 in which she did not find any injury on the
body of the prosecutrix. She found the prosecutrix to be habitual to
sexual intercourse. No definite opinion could be given regarding
recent sexual intercourse with her.
12. R.K. Lalwani (PW8) was the Investigating Officer of the offence in
question. He has stated that he recorded the FIR (Ex.P2) on the
basis of the written report (Ex.P1). He recorded the statements of
witnesses and during investigation he seized a petticoat of the
prosecutrix vide Ex.P4 and underwear of the Appellant vide Ex.P6.
13. Dr. F.R. Nirala (PW9) is the witness who examined the Appellant.
His report is Ex.P13A in which he found the Appellant to be
capable to perform sexual intercourse.
14. A minute examination of the above evidence led by the prosecution
makes it clear that the alleged incident took place on 21.12.1998.
The written report (Ex.P1) was made on 23.12.1998 while the
police station was only 5-6 Kms. away from the village of the
prosecutrix. In Ex.P1, the reason for delay in making the report is
mentioned that main family members were not available at home.
But, the evidence of the prosecution itself shows that husband of
the prosecutrix was present at the time of incident and he
witnessed the alleged incident and immediately thereafter he and
the prosecutrix returned home and informed about the incident to
Sunder (PW4), father-in-law of the prosecutrix. Thus, the
explanation that main family members were not available at home
and, therefore, the report was made belatedly is not acceptable.
From the statements of the prosecutrix (PW1) and her husband
Ramnath (PW3), it is also clear that the alleged incident took place
in a field at about 9:00 a.m. and at that time the prosecutrix had
gone to the field to attend the call of nature. Normally, at about
9:00 a.m., other villagers also found in the field. In the
circumstances, it appears to be suspicious that the Appellant would
have attempted to commit rape with the prosecutrix in presence of
villagers. From the evidence, it is also clear that the alleged
incident took place in a field, but no injury was found on the body of
the prosecutrix in her medical examination. It is also established
that she did not assault the Appellant with the utensil (gundi)
available with her at the time of the alleged incident. She also did
not scratch the body of the Appellant with her nails nor did she pull
his hair and bite him with her teeth. From the statement of her
husband, it is also clear that when he reached the spot, he saw
that her both hands were spread down and the Appellant was
committing sexual intercourse with her and having seen him there,
the Appellant ran away. From the above, it seems that the
prosecutrix was a consenting party and since her husband saw her
in a compromising position with the Appellant, she raised alarm. In
the premises of aforestated, no offence under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code is proved against the Appellant beyond
15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of
the charge framed against him under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code. He is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty
16. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this
judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
(Arvind Singh Chandel)