HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 131 of 1999
Phagulal Satnami S/o Amar Singh Satnami, aged 26 years, R/o
village Khamaria (Lavan), Police Station Kasdol, District Raipur
State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) Through : Station House
Officer, Police Station Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.)
For Appellant – Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent – Shri Ravindra Agrawal, G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker
Judgment On Board
This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 21.12.1998 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge,
Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No.356/98 convicting the
accused/appellant under Sections 450, 376 IPC sentencing him to
undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for seven years
with fine of Rs.1000/- plus default stipulation respectively.
02. As per the prosecution case, on 31.08.1998 FIR (Ex.P/1) was
lodged by the prosecutrix (PW/1), married lady aged about 30 years,
alleging in it that her husband is deaf and dumb and that she has three
children. According to her, on 28.08.1998 at about 12.00 in the mid
night, accused/appellant entered her house, kept her minor child on the
floor who was sleeping beside her on cot and committed forcible
sexual intercourse with her. She has also stated that while the
accused/appellant was committing offence, her husband was sleeping
on a cot adjacent to her. Based on this FIR (Ex.P/1), offence under
Sections 450 and 376 IPC was registered against the
accused/appellant. The prosecutrix was medically examined vide
Ex.P/10 on 01.09.1998 by Dr. (Mrs.) Rajashri Devdhar (PW/8),
however, no injury was found on her body and it has been opined by
the Doctor that no definite opinion can be given regarding commission
of rape. In the incident, one saree, petticoat of the prosecutrix and
underwear of the accused/appellant were seized, the same were
subjected to chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P/15), no
spermatozoa was found on the same. The accused/appellant was also
medically examined by Dr. K.L. Banjare (PW/7) vide Ex.P/8 on
01.09.1998 and found him to be capable of performing sexual
03. After filing of the charge sheet, the trail Court has framed the
charge under Sections 450 and 376 IPC against the
04. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution
examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the
accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in
which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the
prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.
05. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties
and considering the material available on record has convicted and
sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this
judgment. Hence, this appeal.
06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
That the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in
the crime in question.
That very improbable story has been put forth by the
prosecution wherein the prosecutrix was subjected to rape and on a
cot adjacent to her, her husband was sleeping. It has been further
argued that it is a case of consent.
That the statement of the prosecutrix (PW/1) is not reliable
That the medical report of the prosecutrix also does not
support the prosecution case.
07. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been
argued by the State counsel that the conviction of the accused/appellant
is strictly in accordance law and there is no infirmity in the same.
08. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
09. Prosecutrix (PW/1) has stated that on the fateful night she was
sleeping along with her three children and there was no light on that day.
At midnight, the accused/appellant entered her house, gaged her mouth
with his full pant and committed sexual intercourse with her. While the
act was being committed, all of a sudden, light came and then she
identified the accused/appellant. According to her, her husband was
sleeping on a cot adjacent to her but as he is deaf and dumb by birth, he
realises the things on being touched and gesture. She has further stated
that she lodged the report on second day, whereas the FIR is dated
31.08.1998. She has also stated that about one hour she was subjected
to physical relation by the accused/appellant. She admits that she
neither offered any protest nor objected the accused/appellant for
committing offence. She further admits that her hands were free, her
breast were pressed but yet she did not raise any protest there-against.
10. Dr. (Smt.) Rajashree Devdhar (PW/8) medically examined the
prosecutrix on 01.09.1998 vide Ex.P/10. She did not notice any external
injury on her body and opined that no definite opinion can be given
11. Dr. K.L. Banjare (PW/7) medically examined the accused/appellant
vide Ex.P/8 and found him to be capable of performing sexual
12. Ratnesh Mishra (PW/11) – Investigating Officer has duly supported
the prosecution case.
13. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that though the
prosecutrix has levelled allegation of rape against the accused/appellant
but she is not consistent while deposing. Even otherwise very
improbable story has been put forth by the prosecution where it is
alleged that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the
accused/appellant for one hour that too in presence of her husband who
was sleeping on a cot adjacent to her but yet she did not resist and
protest there-against. According to the prosecutrix, at midnight the
accused/appellant entered her house, kept her minor children on floor
who was sleeping just beside her and satiated his lust for one hour.
While the act was being committed, husband of the prosecutrix was
sleeping on a cot adjacent to her and as soon as the light came, she
identified the accused/appellant. Her none resistance to the act of the
appellant clearly shows that she was a consenting party. The evidence of
prosecutrix does not inspire full confidence of this Court. Further,
medical report (Ex.P/10) does not support the prosecution according to
which no injury was found on any part of her body and no definite
opinion was given regarding commission of rape. That apart, in the FSL
report (Ex.P/15), no spermatozoa was found on the clothes of the
prosecutrix and the accused/appellant. Taking into consideration all the
aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the prosecutrix was a consenting
party to the act of the accused/appellant and the possibility of his being
falsely implicated in the crime in question cannot be ruled out.
14. The findings recorded by the Court below thus appear to be
beyond proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution
which cannot have affirmation from this Court. Since, the prosecution
has failed on all fronts to prove its case beyond shadow of doubts, the
benefit, of course, has to go to the accused/appellant. The appeal is
thus allowed, judgment impugned is hereby set aside and the
accused/appellant stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
As the appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds stand
15. Appeal is thus allowed.