XYZ vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Per Narendra Kumar Vyas J.

Heard on admission.

The appellant has preferred this Acquittal Appeal under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.03.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 12/2024, whereby respondent No. 1/accused has been acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 450, 376, 506 of IPC.

The brief facts as reflected from records are that the victim who was aged about 60 years lodged written complaint on 06.01.2024 (Ex. P/1) against respondent No. 1/ accused who is son of victim’s elder paternal uncle alleging that he used to frequently visit her house and about one year ago during rainy season, when the victim was alone at her house, the accused came to her residence and committed rape forcibly with the victim and also threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. It has also been alleged that the accused continuously put pressure on the victim to make physical relations and whenever the victim used to go to the fields or outside, the accused chased her. The act done by the accused was informed by the victim to her daughter. On the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 11/2024 was registered against the accused before Police Station- Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) for commission of offence under Sections 450, 376, 506 of IPC. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court and the trial Court vide its judgment dated 03.03.2026, acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him.

In order to bring home the guilt of respondents/accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses namely victim (PW-1), victim’s daughter Nirmala Dhankar (PW-2), Gopal Prasad Kurre (PW-3), Balram Sahu (PW-4), Avinash Ratre (PW-5), Vivek Patle (PW-6), Reena Gaikwad (PW-7) & Dr. Ujjawala Tandon (PW-8) and exhibited documents Ex. P/1 to P/20.

The victim (PW-1) in her examination-in-chief has narrated the incident supporting the case of the prosecution and in the cross-examination, she has admitted that her house was situated adjacent to the houses of Manharan and Sitaram, although she was not on talking terms with them. She has further admitted that her daughter was residing with her in the same house and she had informed her daughter about the alleged incident after one year. She has denied about lodging of false report against the accused as Sarpanch had removed her community centre. She has denied that she has threatened the Sarpanch that she will not vacate the community centre. She has also stated that she has not received two buckets, one tasla & two ganji on supurdnama and the same are still lying in the community centre.

Victim’s daughter Nirmala Dhankar (PW-2) has been examined before the trial Court wherein in her examination-in-chief she has stated that she had been residing with her mother at Village Boriya for preceding ten years. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that their house was surrounded by other premises and had only one iron gate for entry. She has further stated that she used to accompany her mother when she used to go out of the home for earning livelihood and that her mother had disclosed the alleged incident to her after approximately one year. She has also admitted that she continued to accompany her mother for work even though her mother had not disclosed the incident to her earlier. She has also stated that during the rainy season, the victim was residing in the community centre, whereas she herself was residing in her mother's house. She expressed ignorance regarding the encroachment of the community centre by her mother and its subsequent ejectment pursuant to the intervention of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tahsildar. She has also admitted that she was not talking terms with the accused.

Dr. Ujjwala Tandon (PW-8)/Medical Officer who has medically examined the victim has been examined before the trial Court wherein she has stated that the victim during medical examination has informed her about the incident which took place one year ago and admitted that after examination of victim’s private part, she cannot say that the victim was subjected to forcibly sexual intercourse. She has admitted that the victim was undergone operation of stone 8-9 months prior to her examination.

The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. He has sated that at the time of incident, he was working as Sarpanch and the victim had taken possession of the community centre which was vacated by the Tahsildar, therefore, he has been falsely implicated by the victim in the crime in question. This fact has been admitted by the victim in his cross-examination. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has acquitted the accused for commission of offence as aforestated.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim has fully supported the prosecution case in her testimony but the learned trial Court has discarded her evidence on conjectural and imaginary grounds. She would further submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the victim was a consenting party is not supported by any cogent material on record, therefore, the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside by this Court.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the case of the appellant and would pray for admission of the appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

From perusal of the statement of the victim (PW-1), it is quite vivid that the victim has made complaint against the accused after one year of the alleged incident without any explanation and after ejectment of the victim from community centre by the authorities and at that time, the accused was Sarpanch of that village which suggests that due to previous enmity, the victim has lodged the complaint against the accused. Further, the prosecution in this case has failed to offer any reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR though it is well settled position of law that delay in lodging the FIR in offence related to women is always not fatal but it is equally well settled position of law that the delay in registration not only dilute the inherent credibility of the prosecution story but also result in loss of valuable forensic and medical evidence, which, if collected promptly, could either substantiate or contradict the allegation. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Parkash Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2019) 5 SCC 628] has held as under :-

Considering the fact that the victim’s daughter (PW-2) who has also not disputed the fact that her mother has informed her about the incident after one year of the commission of offence by the accused. The said witness has further admitted in paragraph 11 of her evidence that at the time of rainy season, her mother was residing at community centre which also reflects that the victim has falsely implicated the accused for commission of offence of rape. Further considering the statement of victim’s daughter (PW-2) that there is only one iron gate to enter into the house, therefore, there is no question of entering into the house unless and until the same is opened by the person resides there or the gate is broken. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused has broken the gate and thereafter forcibly committed intercourse with the victim, as such, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution is unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt regarding commission of offence by the accused. Even otherwise, the evidence of the medical officer (PW-8) who has also given opinion that there was no injury in the private part of the victim does not suggest that the victim is subjected to forcible intercourse and also considering the fact that victim’s statement is not of sterling quality, the delay in lodging of the FIR and the circumstances of the case regarding ejectment of the victim from community centre, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and does warrant any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the instant appeal sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.