Allowed

State of C.G. v. Nayan Shankar Puri

Chhattisgarh HC6 May 2025ACQA/288/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction of two accused in a rape case. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove sexual intercourse against the victim's will, citing the victim's conduct and the existence of a prior relationship with the brother, the Court acquitted the appellants via Criminal Appeals and dismissed the State's Acquittal Appeal.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Appeals allowed and Acquittal Appeal dismissed; Certificate of acquittal granted to both accused/appellants.

State of C.G. Vs Nayan Shankar Puri — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:20909

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 819 of 2007

¶6

Nain Shankar Puri, S/o Late Luxmi Puri, aged about 35 years, occupation Teacher (Siksha Karmi), R/o village Amra, Post Rajouli, PS and Tehsil Sonhat, District – Korea (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, P.S. Sonhat Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Respondent

¶11

CRA No. 904 of 2007

¶12

Amareshwar Puri, S/o Late Luxmi Puri, aged about 22 years, occupation Agriculturist, R/o village Amra, Post Rajouli, PS and Tehsil Sonhat, District – Korea (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

--- Appellant

¶14

versus

¶15

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, P.S. Sonhat Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Respondent

¶17

ACQA No. 288 of 2010

¶18

State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, Korea, District – Korea (C.G.)

¶19

--- Appellant

¶20

Versus

¶21

Digitally ROHIT signed by KUMAR ROHIT CHANDRA KUMAR CHANDRA

¶22

¶23

Nayan Shankar Puri, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Shri Laxmi Puri, Occupation – Service, R/o Village Amara, P.S. Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.)

¶24

	---Respondent(s)
For accused/appellants	: Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla along with Ms. Mamta Gendle, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Shakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶26

Judgment on Board

¶27

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶28

07. 05.2025

¶29

Since both the Criminal Appeals filed on behalf of the accused/appellants as well as Acquittal Appeal filed on behalf of the State arise out of same judgment, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶30

Acquittal Appeal No. 288 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the State, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of judgment dated 11.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.05/2007, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused/respondent – Nayan Shankar Puri from the charges under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short ‘the IPC’), however, convicted him under Section 120B read with Section 493 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 03 months.

¶31

¶32

Criminal Appeal Nos. 819 of 2007 and 904 of 2007 have been filed by the respective appellants, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of very same judgment dated 11.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.05/2007, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused/appellant – Nain Shankar Puri (CRA No. 819 of 2007) under Section 120B read with Section 493 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 03 months, further convicted accused/appellant - Amareshwar Puri (CRA No. 904 of 2007) under Sections 376 and 493 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 07 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 06 months and RI for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 03 months respectively.

¶33

The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the year 2005, the victim (PW-1) was a student of class 10th in Aklasarai Government Pre Madhyamik School, where the accused Nayan Shankar Puri was posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-2 and the accused Amreshwar Puri also used to teach in the same school after taking permission. According to the prosecution, the accused Nayan Shankar Puri always used to tell the victim (PW-1) that he will make her pass the class 10th and she should let him have sexual intercourse with her. But the victim never agreed to this proposal

¶34

¶35

of the accused. One day the accused Nayan Shankar Puri met the victim on the bank of the Dugdhi river, when the victim was returning home from school. At that time the accused Nayan Shankar Puri threatened to kill the victim and had sexual intercourse with her and asked the victim not to tell anyone about this incident. But the victim informed her mother Maltidevi (PW12) about the incident, who suggested to report the incident. But the victim (PW-1) did not report the incident fearing that she would be expelled from the school. Thereafter, accused Nayan Shankar Puri had sexual intercourse with the victim several times. As a result of this intercourse, victim proposed to accused Nayan Shankar Puri to marry her, on which accused Nayan Shankar Puri told the victim that he was married and hence he would get her married to his brother, but she should not tell this to anyone.

¶36

After this, one day when the victim was returning home after taking leave from school at 1:30 PM, at about 2 PM, the accused Amreshwar Puri who was also going to school, met the victim on the way and said that his brother Nayan Shankar Puri has asked her to marry him, the victim refused this and came back home. The same day in the evening, the accused Amreshwar Puri came to the victim's house and said that his brother has called her to his house, then she went to the house of accused Nayan Shankar Puri along with the accused Amreshwar Puri, but the wife of the accused Nayan Shankar Puri did not let them enter

¶37

¶38

the house saying that her husband is not at home, come when he comes. Then accused Amreshwar Puri kept the victim in Chamru Singh's (PW 7) house overnight. That night accused Amreshwar Puri forcefully had sexual intercourse with the victim. According to the prosecution, on 11.08.2006, when the victim talked about filing a report against the accused, both the accused said that they will get her married to Amreshwar Puri. On this she calmed down and asked them that till when will they keep disgracing her, on this accused Nayan Shankar Puri said that he will get her married in Baikunthpur Court. After this, on 26.08.2006, both the accused brought the victim to the Court and got her signature on an affidavit and said that she is married to Amreshwar Puri and accused Nayan Shankar also said that till the situation of the matter is resolved in the society, both of them should stay at Santosh Puri's place and after that they should come to his house. On this accused Amreshwar Puri and the victim both went to village-Jamtikara and started living in Santosh Puri's house, but as per the conspiracy of accused Nayan Shankar Puri, he made accused Amreshwar Puri run away from there. The victim kept waiting for accused Amreshwar Puri for a long time. When he did not return, she went to village Aklasarai and told the entire incident to accused Nayan Shankar Puri, on which accused Nayan Shankar Puri said that Amreshwar Puri will not keep her anymore, she can do whatever she wants to do, nothing will happen to him now. victim again told the entire incident to her mother and then her mother Maltidevi asked the accused to go to

¶39

¶40

the police station along with her brother Sitaram and report the matter.

¶41

After the above circumstances, the victim (PW-1) submitted the written report of Ex.P-1 on 30.10.2006 in Police Station, Sonhat, on the basis of which FIR No. 90/2006 (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused on 30.10.2006 itself for the crime under Sections 376, 120B, 493 IPC and consent for medical examination of the victim was taken from the victim and her brother Sitaram (PW-8) vide Ex.P-3 and the medical examination of the victim was done by Dr. K. Patel, whose report is Ex.P-18-A. One of her undergarment was seized from the accused through the seizure memo of Ex.P-5 and after getting it examined by Dr. Neelam Tirkey, report of Ex.P-19 was compiled. Slides of vaginal discharge of the victim were seized vide Ex.P-18. Investigation Officer A. Toppo (PW-14) prepared the map of incident place (Ex.P-4) as per the information given by the victim and photocopy of the statement of the victim and accused Amreshwar Puri was seized by seizure memo of Ex.P-7. Accused Amreshwar Puri was arrested by arrest panchanama (Ex.P-9) and his medical examination was done by Dr. N.P. Bhargava (PW-10), whose report is Ex.P-14. An underwear was seized from accused Amreshwar Puri by Ex.P. 15 and it was also examined by Dr. N.P. Bhargava, the report given by him is Ex.P-15. Accused Nayan Shankar Puri was arrested by the arrest panchanama of Ex.P-12 and his underwear was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-18B and

¶42

¶43

medical examination of this accused and his underwear was conducted by Dr. N.P. Bhargava, whose medical examination report regarding the accused is Ex.P-16 and the medical report of the underwear is Ex.P-17. Map of the place of incident was prepared by Halka Patwari Tribhuvan Dubey (PW-13) and original affidavit of the victim and accused Amreshwar Puri was seized vide seizure memo of Ex.P-6. In the case, the seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination vide memo of Ex.P-19-A, the acknowledgement copy of which is Ex.P-20.

¶44

Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet (Ex.P-21) was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 376, 120B, 493 of the IPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur and since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case received after it was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge by the Committal Court.

¶45

When the charges against accused Amreshwar Puri under Sections 376, 493 and 120B of IPC and against accused Nayan Shankar Puri under Sections 376, 120B read with Section 493 of IPC were framed and read out to them, they denied the allegations and claimed trial. In the statement taken under Section 313 Cr. P.C., accused Amreshwar Puri stated that he had a love affair with the victim since 2005, and gradually physical relationship developed between them. Due to immense love

¶46

¶47

between them, they got married in Premabag temple, and after that, they went to the Court and got affidavits made and the next day submitted the application in the Court of the Marriage Registration Officer- Collector. He asked the victim to stay at her mother's house till he gets the marriage certificate, but the victim said that her mother would drive her away. He also told the victim to go and get her mother's blessings, but the victim was not ready for this and asked her to take a separate house and live there. Then she started living in Santosh Puri's house. The accused has also stated that his brother accused Nayan Shankar Puri opposed his love affair with the victim. He needed money for his business and for the birth certificate, for which he had to go to Uttar Pradesh. He asked the victim to come with him, but she refused saying that the Anganwadi vacancy is about to come out and she will apply. In the meantime, after he went to Uttar Pradesh, the victim wrote a false report. The victim used to write love letters to him all the time.

¶48

Accused Nayan Shankar Puri has stated in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC that he came to know for the first time on 10.08.2006 that his brother and the victim were in a love relationship, which he opposed, but his brother did not listen, then he got his brother and the victim married in the Prembagh temple in front of the priest and an affidavit was also prepared in this regard in the Court, which was presented in the Collector's Court the next day. He has also stated that the victim was asked to stay

¶49

¶50

in her house until she gets the marriage certificate, but she refused saying that if she goes to her mother's house, her mother will drive her away, then both of them voluntarily started living in Santosh Puri's house. It is further stated that in the marriage registration case, a birth certificate was required, for which his brother went to Uttar Pradesh to get it and in the meantime a false report was lodged against them.

¶51

In order to prove the above charges against the accused, a total of 14 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and 21 documents have been exhibited, contrary to which, on behalf of the defence, four defence witnesses have been examined and 17 documents have been marked as Exhibit-D.

¶52

The Sessions Judge after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants as aforementioned. Against which, aforesaid two Criminal Appeals have been filed by the accused/appellants, whereas aforesaid Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State.

¶53

Learned counsel for the accused / appellants vehemently argued that so far as the allegation against accused - Amreshwar Puri is concerned, the allegation is of the month of August, 2006, whereas the report was lodged in the month of October, 2006 as such, there is delay of about two months in lodging the FIR. The victim admitted in para 35 of her cross-examination that accused Amreshwar Puri and she went to Baikunthpur for performing

¶54

¶55

Court marriage and the marriage between them was performed in Shiv Temple. An affidavit was prepared regarding marriage performed in the Shiv Temple. However, the report was lodged by victim in the month of October, 2006 by making false allegations that appellant Amreshwar Puri committed rape with her in August 2006. He also argued that the cognizance of offence under Section 493 of IPC could not be taken by the Court in view of the bar contained in Section 198 of CrPC. From perusal of the statement of victim, it would be evident that the nature of dispute raised by her and the complaint is that of desertion by the appellant, who is husband of the victim, hence the question of commission of the offence punishable u/s 493 IPC and section 376 IPC, at least after the marriage could not arise, specially when the victim was major. He further submitted that the learned trial Court erred in not adverting to the circumstances, proved on the record, to the effect that (i) there was a long standing love affair between the victim and the appellant duly established by oral as well as documentary evidence, (ii) there was no immediate protest or report after the alleged forcible intercourse and (iii) the circumstances clearly established that forcible sexual intercourse was not at all possible.

¶56

It is submitted that had all the circumstances been considered in their proper prospective the offence of rape would not have been found proved by the trial Court itself against the accused Nayan Shankar Puri. He also submitted that the trial

¶57

¶58

Court has also erred in holding that a criminal conspiracy was proved, whereas the material on record clearly established that the alleged offence has not at all been committed, or attempted to be committed nor there was any intention to do so at any point of time, on the other hand there was a genuine marriage between the victim and accused Amreshwar Puri. Hence, the conviction for offence punishable under Section 493 read with Section 120B IPC is wholly unsustainable. He relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2003, AIR SCW 1035, Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 and Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108 and Dola @ Dolagobinda Pradhan & Another v. State of Odisha reported in (2018) 18 SCC 695 to buttress his submission.

¶59

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused Amreshwar Puri based on the evidence available on record, in which no interference is warranted, whereas the learned trial Court, while acquitting the accused Nayan Shankar Puri under Section 376 of IPC, has failed to appreciate that the statement of the victim (PW-1), wherein she has specifically stated that while returning home from school, on the bank of the Dugdhi river, accused Nayan

¶60

¶61

Shankar Puri by threatening her to kill had sexual intercourse with her and asked her not to tell anyone about the said incident, but due to fear that she would be expelled from the school, she did not report the incident. Thereafter, accused Nayan Shankar Puri had sexual intercourse with the victim several times, as such, Acquittal Appeal deserves to be allowed and Criminal Appeals filed by the accused/appellants deserve to be dismissed.

¶62

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and original record of the trial Court.

¶63

There is no dispute on the fact that the age of the victim was more than 16 years at the time of the incident, because the incident is clearly stated to have taken place in August 2005. The report of the incident was lodged on 30.10.2006, which states the age of the victim to be 19 years. It is also clear from this that the age of the victim was more than 16 years at the time of the incident.

¶64

In view of the aforesaid factual position, the question to be considered is as to whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim? and if yes, did they have sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim or against her will?

¶65

The victim (PW-1) in her deposition has stated that one day in the month of August-2005, accused Nayan Shankar Puri met her on the banks of Dudhodhara river when she was returning from school in the evening and threatened to kill her and had sexual intercourse with her. The witness has further stated that before

¶66

¶67

the incident, accused Nayan Shankar Puri always used to tell her that if she allows him to have sexual intercourse, he will make her pass in 10th class. The witness has also stated that she had informed her mother about this incident after a few days. Her mother had asked her to report, but she did not report about the said incident at that time thinking that accused Nayan Shankar Puri will expel her from school. The above statement given by the witness has been supported by the mother of the accused, Maltidevi (PW12) in her evidence. Further, victim (PW-1) has also stated that after that accused Nayan Shankar Puri had sexual intercourse with her several times, and when she said that as he is having sexual intercourse with her, hence he should marry with her, upon this accused Nayan Shankar Puri said that he is married, hence he will get her married to his brother Amreshwar Puri, but she should not tell this to anybody.

¶68

On behalf of the defence, love letters from Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4, joint photographs of the accused and the victim (Ex.D-6), love letters from Ex.D-7 to Ex.D-16 have been relied upon regarding the love affair of the victim with the cousin of this accused, Amreshwar Puri since the year 2005, on the basis that these letters were written by the victim to the accused Amreshwar Puri and their love affair was not accepted by the accused Nayan Shankar Puri. After closely observing all the love letters presented, it was found that in Ex.D-11, the date of 20.12.2005 is mentioned, whereas according to the evidence given by the victim, the incident started

¶69

¶70

in August 2005. Thereafter, the accused kept having sexual intercourse with the victim and later on, the accused assured the complainant of getting her married to his brother Amreshwar Puri. The victim (PW-1) has stated in paragraph 5 of her evidence that in August 2006, when she was returning home after taking leave from school at 1.30 pm, the accused Amreshwar Puri, who was coming to the school to teach, met her on the way and he told her that the accused Nayan Shankar Puri had asked her to marry him, but she refused and came back home. When the victim (PW-1) was questioned in cross-examination regarding the love letters from Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-7 to Ex.D-16, she has stated that letters Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4 were written by her, however she has denied the suggestion that the other letters to be in her handwriting. Even if these letters are accepted, it reveals that the exchange of love letters between the victim and accused Amreshwar Puri took place in the month of December-2005. Victim (PW-1) has stated in paragraph 5 of her evidence that accused Amreshwar Puri had met her in August-2006 and talked about marriage, it cannot be interpreted that she was having love affair with accused Amreshwar Puri since August-2006, as the letters written by her were of prior to the said period, thus, it is clear that the victim has made a false statement.

¶71

From perusal of the FIR lodged by the mother of the victim against accused Amreshwar Puri at Police Station Sonhat, in which after investigation, preventive action under Section

¶72

¶73

107/116(3) of CrPC has been taken against accused Amreshwar Puri, there is no allegation against accused Nayan Shankar Puri either by the victim, her mother or her brother.

¶74

No such evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove that the victim was under such unfavorable family of accused Amreshwar Puri that she could not resist the act of accused Nayan Shankar Puri. The victim has merely stated that the accused Nayan Shankar Puri intimidated her by threatening to kill her. The witness is silent as to what kind of act the accused inflicted on her. The evidence of the victim does not reveal that she was frightened to such an extent by any threat given by the accused that she had no option but to surrender to the accused. It is noteworthy that in relation to sexual intercourse by the accused, the statement of the victim is not that before sexual intercourse he had connivance with her by assuring her that he will help her pass in the examination, rather before the incident the accused had asked for the proposal of the victim with the promise of helping her pass in the examination, which she refused and the accused threatened to kill her. Both the situations are different.

¶75

It is also not evident from the evidence of victim (PW-1) that she put up any resistance when the accused had sexual intercourse with her. The evidence of the victim reveals that she did not inform her mother about the incident on the same day but after some days. This is also not a natural situation and when she

¶76

¶77

informed her mother about the incident after some days, even after her mother's suggestion to report the incident, she did not report the incident only because of the fear that she would be expelled from the school, this is also not a natural situation, especially in such a situation when the accused continued to have sexual intercourse with her even after that. No student will continuously give consent to a teacher to have sexual intercourse with her because she was afraid that he would expel her from the school. In such a situation, the victim appears as a consenting party and in such a situation it is concluded that she was a consenting party in the sexual intercourse done by the accused Nayan Shankar Puri.

¶78

Victim (PW-1) has stated in para 4 of her evidence that when accused Nayan Shankar Puri had intercourse with her many times, he told her that he was having intercourse with her, marry her. On this Nayan Shankar Puri said that he is married, so he will get her married to his brother Amreshwar Puri, if she does not tell this to anyone. The victim has further stated in para 7 of her evidence that on 11.08.2006, when she asked to report against both accused Nayankar Puri and Amreshwar Puri in the police station, the accused said that they will get her married to Amreshwar Puri in the Court, then she calmed down and she also said that how long will they people keep disgracing her, then accused Nayan Shankar Puri said that he will get her married to his brother Amreshwar Puri. Further, in para 8, the victim has

¶79

¶80

stated that on 26.08.2006 accused Nayan Shankar Puri and Amreshwar Puri brought her to Baikunthpur Court and made her sign the consent letter, after that accused Nayan Shankar Puri said that she had married to Amreshwar Puri, and accused Nayan Shankar Puri also said that till the situation in the society improves, both of them, i.e. the victim and accused Amreshwar Puri, stay in Santosh Puri's house, on this she and accused Amreshwar Puri stayed at Santosh's place for some days. This witness has further stated in para - 9 that after this the accused Nayan Shankar Puri hatched a conspiracy and made his brother Amreshwar Puri run away. She waited for Amreshwar Puri for a long time, but he did not return, she went and told the whole thing to Nayan Shankar Puri, on this Nayan Shankar Puri said, "His brother will not keep her, go and do whatever she want to do, now nothing will happen to her."

¶81

Now the fact of marriage is considered. The victim has accepted the suggestion in paragraph 35 of her evidence that they reached for Court marriage at 3-3.30 in the afternoon, Amreshwar Puri, Nayan Shankar Puri, she and B.L. Kashyap reached Premabag Shiv temple and there in the Shiv temple she got married to Amreshwar Puri. Further in paragraph 36 also she has accepted the suggestion that from Premabag temple they came to Baikunthpur Court and got the affidavit prepared for getting married in the temple.

¶82

In the statement taken under Section 313 Cr. P.C., accused

¶83

¶84

Amreshwar Puri stated that he had a love affair with the victim since 2005, and gradually physical relationship developed between them. Due to immense love between them, they got married in Premabag temple, and after that, they went to the Court and got affidavits made and the next day submitted the application in the Court of the Marriage Registration OfficerCollector. He asked the victim to stay at her mother's house till he gets the marriage certificate, but the victim said that her mother would drive her away. He also told the victim to go and get her mother's blessings, but the victim was not ready for this and asked her to take a separate house and live there. Then they started living in Santosh Puri's house. The accused has also stated that his brother accused Nayan Shankar Puri opposed his love affair with the victim. He needed money for his business and for the birth certificate, for which he had to go to Uttar Pradesh. He asked the victim to come with him, but she refused saying that the Anganwadi vacancy is about to come out and she will apply. In the meantime, after he went to Uttar Pradesh, the victim wrote a false report. The victim used to write love letters to him all the time.

¶85

From the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that accused Amreshwar Puri was having a love affair with the victim since 2005 and gradually physical relationship developed between them and he married to the victim in the temple, an affidavit has also been prepared in this regard and brother of the victim,

¶86

¶87

Sitaram has also signed the said affidavit as a witness, and this affidavit was prepared to be presented in the Court of the marriage officer, its veracity cannot be doubted. It further reveals that the accused Amreshwar Puri loves the victim unconditionally and from his conduct it did not seem that he was trying to deceive or do anything.

¶88

Dr. Mrs. Neelam Tirky, who had conducted the MLC of the victim, in her report (Exhibit P/18A) she did not found any injuries either externally or internally but the hymen was found to be old torn and she could not give any opinion with regard to the recent sexual intercourse. She had prepared vaginal smear slides and after preserving it, handed over to the police constable for biochemical examination.

¶89

Dr. N.P. Bhargav (PW-10), who was the Medical Officer, who had examined both the appellants and found them capable of performing sexual intercourse vide his reports (Exs. P/14 & P/16 respectively).

¶90

It is an admitted position that accused Amreshwar Puri was having a love affair with the victim since 2005 and gradually physical relationship developed between them and he married to the victim in the temple, an affidavit has also been prepared in this regard which is also signed by the brother of the victim, Sitaram, and after marriage, they lived together as husband and wife in the house of Santosh Puri, wherein also they made physical relationship with each other and the victim has never

¶91

¶92

resisted nor complained to anyone and only when accused Amreshwar Puri had gone outside the village, she had lodged the FIR. She was free to tell to any person had the relationship was made forcefully or using threat or coercion or allurement. In the present case, the victim was free and not in any captivity of any kind and had it been a case of threat or coercion, she would not have told to anyone but that is not the case in hand. She could have easily inform any of her own family members or the family members of the appellant if the appellant had made physical relationship after creating pressure or allurement.

¶93

In view of the above discussion, it can safely be held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was a minor on the date of incident.

¶94

In Alamelu & Another v. State, represented by Inspector of

¶95

Police {(2011) 2 SCC 385}, where the facts and circumstances were similar to that of this case, the Supreme Court observed as under:

¶96

“51. This Court in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan {AIR 1952 SC 54} declared that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the aforesaid case, Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows:-

¶97

"The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make

¶98

¶99

it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge, … The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand."

¶100

The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by this Court in numerous judgments subsequently. These observations leave no manner of doubt that a conviction can be recorded on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of a victim provided it does not suffer from any basic infirmities or improbabilities which render it unworthy of credence.

¶101

xxx xxx xxx

¶102

Even PW5, Thiru Thirunavukarasu stated that Sekar (A1) had brought the girl with him to his house and told him that he had married her. They had come to see Trichy and requested a house to stay. This witness categorically stated that he thought that they were newly married couple. He had made them stay in Door No. 86 of the Police Colony, which was under his responsibility. On 10th August, 1993, the police inspector, who arrived there at 10.00 p.m. told this witness that Sekar (A1) had married the girl by threatening her and "spoiled her". The girl, according to the prosecution, was recovered from the aforesaid premises. Therefore, for six days, this girl was staying with Sekar (A1). She did not raise any protest. She did not even complain to this witness or any other residents in the locality. Her behavior of not complaining to anybody at any of the stages after being allegedly abducted would be wholly unnatural.

¶103

¶104

Earlier also, she had many opportunities to complain or to run away, but she made no such efort. It is noteworthy that she made no protest on seeing some known persons near the car, after her alleged abduction. She did not make any complaint at the residence of Selvi, sister of Sekar (A1) at Pudupatti. Again, there was no complaint on seeing her relatives allegedly assembled at the temple. Her relatives apparently took no steps at the time when mangalsutra was forcibly tied around her neck by Sekar (A1). No one sent for police help even though a car was available. She made no complaint when she was taken to the house of PW5, Thiru Thirunavukarasu and stayed at his place. Again, there was no protest when Sekar (A1) took her to the police station on 5^th day of the alleged abduction and told at the Tiruchi Police Station that they had already been married. The above behaviour would not be natural for a girl who had been compelled to marry and subjected to illicit sexual intercourse.

¶105

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt any of the offences with which the appellants had been charged. It appears that the entire prosecution story has been concocted for reasons best known to the prosecution.”

¶106

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court needs interference and as such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 11.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh in

¶107

¶108

Sessions Trial No.05/2007 is hereby set aside and both the accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges.

¶109

Resultantly, both the Criminal Appeals (CRA No. 819/2017 and 904/2007) filed on behalf of the accused/appellants stand allowed and Acquittal Appeal (ACQA No. 288/2010) filed on behalf of the State stands dismissed .

¶110

The appellants/convict are reported to be on bail. They need not surrender, however, keeping in view the provision of Section 437A of the Cr.P.C. {Section 481 of the BNSS}, their bail bonds shall remain effective for a period of six months from today.

¶111

Registry is directed to transmit the record of the trial Court along with a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶112

Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶113

Chandra

State of C.G. v. Nayan Shankar Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of C.G. v. Nayan Shankar Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Bist Vs Vidyut Grih Shiksha Samiti

Vijay Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Kumar Virwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kumar Satnami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rikhiram Sori Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deendayal Sidar Vs Gram Panchayat Thuthi