Two appellants convicted of gang rape and assault appealed against their sentence, alleging false implication and unreliable DNA evidence due to delay in sending samples. The High Court upheld the trial court's findings, finding victim testimony corroborated by MLC, FSL and DNA reports, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2025:CGHC:3639-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 13/01/2025
Judgment Delivered on 21/01/2025
CRA No. 1582 of 20 17
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellants :- Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate. For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer Amicus Curiae :- Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate.
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
C.A.V. Judgment
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.01.23 10:35:29 +0530
2
1 This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellants (A-1 & A-2) herein against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Janjgir, District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.), in S.T. No. 98/2016 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 376-D of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 20 |
| years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, | |
| in default of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months. |
|
| U/s 323/34 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 6 |
| months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, | |
| in default of fine amount | |
| additional R.I. for 6 months. | |
| U/s 427/34 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 6 |
| months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, | |
| in default of fine amount | |
| additional R.I. for 6 months. |
sentences were directed to run (All the concurrently).
3
prosecutrix and started abusing her and vandalizing the house by hitting the house with sticks. They challenged the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) to come out. When the prosecutrix and her husband came out, the accused Madan Banjare using filthy language started assaulting the prosecutrix with a stick. The husband of the prosecutrix ran towards the colony for help. Meanwhile, the accused Madan and Potu dragged the prosecutrix to Ameripar Narwa. There, both of them threw the victim on the ground. The accused was saying that the son Umesh of the prosecutrix has ran away with the wife of the appellant and that those people will rape her. Saying this, first Potu and then Madan raped the prosecutrix one by one, then seeing the villagers coming, both of them fled on their motorcycle.
3 Further, case of the prosecution is that on the basis of the said written report FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-2. During the investigation, after obtaining the permission of the Executive Magistrate and consent from the prosecutrix and her husband vide Ex.P-3, MLC of the prosecutrix was conducted vide Ex.P-4 by Dr. Lalita Toppo (PW-9). Accused Madan Bajpai and Potu alias Rajkumar were also examined by Dr. C.P. Singh (PW-10) vide Exs.P-21 & P-22, in which the accused were found to be capable of having sexual intercourse. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Crime Details form was prepared vide Ex.P-6. Properties were seized vide Exs.P-5, P-9 and P-25 and sent for chemical examination to FSL. In FSL report (Ex.P28) semen and human sperm were found on the
4
underwear, petticoat and vaginal swap slides of the prosecutrix (Articles A1, A2 and B, respectively) and semen and human sperm were also found on the underwear of the appellants (Articles C & D). During the investigation, the petticoat, underwear, two slides of the prosecutrix, which were preserved during chemical tests, and blood stains of the prosecutrix and accused Madan and Potu alias Rajkumar were sent to C.D.F. Hyderabad for DNA testing. In DNA test report (Exs.P-32 & P-33) it is stated that “Results from the DNA test performed on exhibits provided are sufficient to conclude that the biological material present on the sources of exhibit A (black colour petticoat of victim) and exhibit B (vaginal slides of victim) is form the sources of exhibit E (Madan Banjare @ Madan Bajpai), exhibit F (Rajkumar Sonwani @ Potu) and exhibit G (blood stains of victim)” . After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.
5
the appellants (A-1 & A-2) has been convicted and sentenced for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
6 Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. The trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences by recording a finding which is perverse to the record as there is no evidence on record upon which their conviction could have been based. He further submits that the seizure of the petticoat of the prosecutrix and the underwear of the appellants have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutrix herself stated that she came to the police after taking a bath and therefore there is no evidentiary value of the DNA report. He also submits that the learned trial Court has failed to see that no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellants are liable to be acquitted. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the mater of Rahul v. State of NCT of Delhi 1.
1 (2023) 1 SCC 83
6
7
prosecutrix (PW-1) remained consistent in her statement.
8
Beniram (PW-2) and the MLC report (Ex.P-4) proved by Dr. Lalita Toppo (PW-9). Moreover, the FSL report (Ex.P-28) in which semen and human sperm were found on the undergarments of the victim and the appellants and the DNA report (Exs.P-32 & P- 33) which shows that the DNA of the appellants matched with the biological material present on slides of the victim (PW-1). As such, on the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellants are guilty of having committed rape with the prosecutrix (PW-1) against her will and consent and also assaulted her, is strictly in accordance with the law, for which, they have rightly been convicted and sentenced. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.
“ 32. It is true that PW-23 Dr. B.K. Mohapatra, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had stepped into the witness box and his report regarding DNA profiling was exhibited as Ex. PW-23/A, however mere exhibiting a document, would not prove its contents. The record shows that all the samples relating to the accused and relating to
9
the deceased were seized by the Investigating Officer on 14.02.2012 and 16.02.2012; and they were sent to CFSL for examination on 27.02.2012. During this period, they remained in the Malkhana of the Police Station. Under the circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the samples collected also could not be ruled out. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court has examined the underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports nor have they examined the fact whether the techniques were reliably applied by the expert. In absence of such evidence on record, all the reports with regard to the DNA profiling become highly vulnerable, more particularly when the collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination were also not free from suspicion.”
But the facts of the present case are totally different from the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellants, and no question has been put before the investigating officer in his cross-examination regarding the delay in sending the samples for DNA profiling, therefore, they cannot get the benefit of that judgment.
10
disbelieved. In this case, the arguments raised in the appeal are not found acceptable, therefore, no need to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge
H.L. Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Was the conviction of the appellants for gang rape and assault sustainable on the victim's testimony, medical, FSL and DNA evidence?
Can a delayed DNA report be disregarded per Rahul v. State of NCT of Delhi when no cross-examination challenged the delay?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rahul v. State of NCT of DelhiDistinguished
(2023) 1 SCC 83 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Madan Banjare @ Madan Bajpayee
Rajkumar Sonawani @ Potu
State of Chhattisgarh (Police Station Akaltara)
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
