Allowed¶15

Rambharos v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2025CRA/182/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rambharos v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA No. 182 of 2016 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; decided 07/07/2025; Bibhu Datta Guru, J.). S.374(2) Cr.P.C appeal against conviction under Sections 450, 342 and 376(1) IPC (ST No. 425/2012, judgment dated 22.01.2016). Appeal allowed; conviction set aside as perverse for want of evidence: three-day delay in lodging report (incident 03.07.2012 vs report 06.07.2012), independent witnesses PW1-PW3 hostile, no genital injury found in medical examination. Accused acquitted; bail bonds operative six months per Section 481 BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of the charges; bail bonds not discharged and to remain operative for six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. ¶15

Rambharos Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of the charges; bail bonds not discharged and to remain operative for six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offences in question?

¶9

Court's answer

Considering that the incident is of 03.07.2012 but the report was lodged on 06.07.2012, that all independent witnesses (PW1-PW3) turned hostile, and that the doctor did not support the prosecution case as no injury marks were found on the genitals, there is a lack of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The judgment and sentence awarded by the learned trial court are perverse in nature and therefore liable to be set aside.

¶13

Key takeaways

The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried.ratio¶14
As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 182 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 07.07.2025 by Bibhu Datta Guru, J. Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 425/2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Sarguja (Ambikapur), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 450 of the IPC (imprisonment 7 years + fine Rs. 1000/-), U/s 342 of IPC (6 months + fine Rs. 1000/-) and U/s 376(1) of the IPC (RI 7 years + fine Rs. 1000/-), all sentences concurrent. Held, allowing the appeal: the incident was of 03.07.2012 but the report was lodged on 06.07.2012; all independent witnesses (PW1 Sukhmet, PW2 Jamuna, PW3 Renchi Bai) turned hostile; the medico-legal examiner (Dr. Kiran Bhajgavali, PW5) found no external injury marks on the genitals and gave no definite opinion of assault; accordingly there was a lack of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime and the trial court's judgment and sentence were perverse and liable to be set aside. The accused was acquitted of the charges; his bail bonds were not discharged and were directed to remain operative for six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.

¶1

¶2

CRA No. 182 of 2016

¶3

2025:CGHC:31016

¶4

NAFR

¶5

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.10 10:21:07 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 182 of 2016

¶8

Rambharos S/o Mukutdhari Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Unchdih, P.S. Batouli, Distt. Sarguja Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Batouli, Distt. Sarguja Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, P.L.

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶16

07/07/2025

¶17

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 425/2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Sarguja (Ambikapur) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as

¶18

¶19

CRA No. 182 of 2016

¶20

under:-

¶21

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 450 of the IPC	Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month
U/s 342 of IPC	Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month
U/s 376(1) of the IPC	RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month

¶22

(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently)

¶23

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 3/7/2012, the prosecutrix went to Lamgaon for withdrawing amount from Gramin Bank and on the way one lady informed her that the amount has not been transferred in the bank account and thereafter, she returned back and stayed in the house one Bali Nagesiya and after taking meal when she slept over in his house, the appellant trespassed into the house and insulted her and when she raised voice the accused gagged her mouth and slapped her and when the family members reached there, the appellant fled over from the place of incident.

¶24

During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the

¶25

¶26

CRA No. 182 of 2016

¶27

accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial.

¶28

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

¶29

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 22.01.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He would submit that there is no sufficient material available to connect the accused with the crime in question. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶33

The question for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offences in question ?

¶34

¶35

CRA No. 182 of 2016

¶36

In the case at hand, the prosecutrix (PW4) herself stated that she had gone to Gangapur to buy fertilizer and was returning from there when her brother-in-law's son Bali Nagesia of village Gangapur, asked her to have lunch, so she stopped and ate food and slept on the floor at his house. She further stated that when she was sleeping on the floor, the accused, who is the son of her brother-in-law (jeth) came and started pulling her clothes and insulted her. She further stated that when she raised alarm, other family members came and after seeing them the accused ran away. She also stated that she told about the incident to her family members, watchman and the Sarpanch.

¶37

Dr. Kiran Bhajgavali (PW5) has stated that on 7.7.12 at 5.00 p.m., the prosecutrix (PW4), age 40 years, was bought for examination. Her identification mark was a black mole on her right cheek. During examination, she was found to be physically and mentally healthy. Her secondary sex character was fully developed. A blue coloured contusion was found on her body on the right thigh, the size of which was 7.7 cm, which was three to four days before the examination. The injury was caused by a hard and blunt instrument and the injury was of ordinary nature. No external injury marks were found on the genitals. The hymen membrane was found to be old and torn. She further stated that definite opinion could not be given about the physical assault and she advised for chemical test to confirm it, its report is Ex.P.4.

¶38

Further independent witness PW1 Sukhmet has stated that she

¶39

¶40

CRA No. 182 of 2016

¶41

knows the appellant and the victim but has no idea about the incident, PW2 Jamuna has also stated that she knows the appellant and the victim and corroborated the statement of PW-1. Similarly is the statement of PW3 namely Renchi Bai in whose house the incident took place. All these witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶42

Considering the entire evidence available on record and particularly considering the fact that the incident is of 03.07.2012, however report was lodged on 06.07.2012 and further, looking to the evidence of prosecutrix and particularly all the independent witnesses have been turned hostile and doctor has also not supported the case of the prosecution as no injury marks was found on the genitals, therefore, there is lack of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime in question. Even, I am of the view that the judgment and sentence awarded by learned trial court is perverse in nature and therefore is liable to be set aside.

¶43

The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. It is stated that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.

¶44

Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed .

¶45

Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶46

Gowri/ Jyoti

Rambharos v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambharos v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amolak Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gayaprasad Paswan Vs South Eastern Coalfields Lmd.

Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuber Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ikrar Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh