Allowed

Panchan Rajwade v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Apr 2025CRA/1474/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for rape, criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement with SC/ST atrocities charges; age proof lacking, no FSL report, and contradictions in the victim's testimony meant she failed the sterling witness test, leading to acquittal on benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt; bail bond to remain in force six months under s.437-A Cr.P.C.; appellant need not surrender.

Panchan Rajwade Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:17417-DB

ASHOK SAHU

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.04.17 15:09:51 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRA No. 1474 of 2015

¶8

{Arising out of judgment dated 20.09.2012 passed in Special Sessions Case No.28/2010 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Sarguja, Ambikapur}

¶9

Panchan Rajwade, S/o. Kailash Rajwade, Aged About 31 Years, R/o. Village - Maheshpur, Thana - Jainagar, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station– Surajpur, AJAK Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

: For Appellant Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate

¶15

(Division Bench)

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Judgment on Board

(1 6.04.2025)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶22

1 . This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, Surguja, in Special Sessions Trial No.28/2010, by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under :

¶23

CONVICTION		SENTENCE
U/s. 376 of Indian Penal Code and U/s. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.	:	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, 6 months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.
U/s. 506 (Part-II) of Indian Penal Code and	:	Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of
U/s. 3(1)(x) of		Rs.1000/-, in default of
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.		payment of fine, 2 months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.
U/s. 342 of Indian	:	Rigorous imprisonment for
Penal Code All the sentence	s to	1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 month’s additional rigorous imprisonment. run concurrently.

¶24

¶25

2 . Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 28.10.2009 & 29.10.2009, at about 2:30 to 3:00 A.M., the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the minor victim against her wishes knowing fully well that she is member of Scheduled Tribe and thereby, committed the aforesaid offences. Zero FIR was registered vide Ex.P-6 and numbered FIR was registered vide Ex.P-6A. The mark-sheet of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-8 in which the date of birth of the victim is shown as 25.06.1996. MLC of the victim was conducted by Dr. Rashmi Kumar (PW-6) vide Ex.P-10, in which no external injury was found on her body and the victim was found to be habitual of sexual intercourse; however, no FSL report has been brought on record to know about recent sexual intercourse. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

¶26

3 . During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offences, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and

¶27

¶28

exhibited 10 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has examined only 2 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents.

¶29

4 . The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶30

5 . Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was less than 18 years on the date of offence and there is no medical evidence and forensic evidence available on record to support the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of statement of the victim (PW-7), however, her statement is not of sterling quality to base the conviction; therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶31

6 . Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt and

¶32

¶33

also proved the age of the victim to be less than 18 years. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

7 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶35

8 . The first question is whether the prosecution has proved the age of the victim to be less than 18 years on the date of offence, for which the mark-sheet of the victim (Ex.P-7) has been brought on record on behalf of the prosecution, but the author of the mark-sheet (Ex.P-8) has not been examined and only at the instance of victim’s father (PW-5), it has been exhibited. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim to be less than 18 years on the date of offence beyond reasonable doubt and there is no other evidence to hold that the victim was less than 18 years on the date of offence. Similarly, the victim was medically examined by Dr. Rashmi Kumar (PW-6) vide Ex.P-10, in which no external injury was found on the body of the victim and though her hymen was ruptured, but she was found to be habitual of

¶36

¶37

sexual intercourse. The slides of the victim were prepared for chemical examination, but there is no FSL report brought on record to support the case of the prosecution. As such, the medical evidence and forensic evidence are not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶38

9 . Now, the case of the prosecution is based on the sole testimony of the victim, therefore, it must be of sterling quality as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai

¶39

Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi)1 wherein it has been observed that who can be said to be a “sterling witness” and which has been recently followed in the matter of Santosh

¶40

Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar2 . Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) have held in paragraph No.22 as under:-

¶41

“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would

¶42

1 (2012) 8 SCC 21

¶43

2 (2020) 2 S.C.R. 798

¶44

¶45

be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable

¶46

¶47

the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.

¶48

10. Coming to the facts of the case and the statement of the victim (PW-7), it appears that in the intervening night of 28/29.10.2009, the appellant is said to have committed sexual intercourse with the victim, which she immediately informed to her sister-in-law, but her sister-in-law has not been examined. The victim’s brother’s wife was also present when she informed about the incident, but she has also not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Furthermore, the victim’s father & mother both were in the house, but she did not inform about the incident to her father, who has been examined as PW-5 and also her mother, who has been examined as PW-1; therefore, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. However, there is serious contradiction and omission in the statement of the victim qua her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In the statement before the Court, she has stated that in the intervening night when she came out from the house to answer the nature’s call, she was taken by the appellant to his own shop, but in the cross-examination in para 22, she has

¶49

¶50

admitted that it has not been mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P-6) and in the police statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.D-1. She has also not stated in the statement before the police that her face was covered by the neck-towel, on account of which, she could not shout. Furthermore, the fact of slapping her has also not been stated in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-1) and in the FIR (Ex.P-6). She further stated in para 14 of her statement before the Court that she used to visit the shop of the victim. As such, she appears to be a consenting party and in that view of the matter, the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, as victim fails to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness” as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra). Therefore, it would be absolutely risky to maintain the conviction of the appellant and, as such, he is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶51

11. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2012 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellant stands acquitted giving him benefit of doubt from the charges framed

¶52

¶53

against him for the offences under Section 376 of I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under Section 506 Part-II of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 342 of I.P.C. The appellant is already on bail, he need not surrender; however, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶54

12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any.

¶55

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge

¶56

Ashok

Panchan Rajwade v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchan Rajwade v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwini Singh Vs Akash Chikara

M/S Mahavir Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Deepnarayana Gond Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikram and Another Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nand Kumar and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vishnu @ Domar and Another Vs State Of Chhattisgarh