NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR…
Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 376(1) and 506-B IPC on benefit of doubt; bail bonds to remain operative for six months under Section 481 BNSS.
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
Digitally signed bySHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date:2025.12.04 10:35:00 +0530
2025:CGHC:58412
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 588 of 2016
Aniruddha Sidar S/o Udai Lal Gond Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sanko, P.S. Tapkara, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Tapkara, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Shri Akhtar Hussain, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Shri R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Judgment on Board
02/12/2025
Cr.P.C 1973 is against impugned judgment of conviction and
2
order of sentence dated 24.04.2015 passed in Sessions trial
No. 07/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, whereby the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/S 506-B of I.P.C. | Rigorous imprisonment for 01 |
| year and fine amount of Rs. | |
| 1000/- with default stipulation. | |
| U/s 376 (1)of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 10 |
| years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with | |
| default stipulation. |
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix, resident of Village Katabahal, P.S. Talsara, District Sundergarh (Orissa), had gone along with her aunt to a temple situated at Village Kotebira, PS Tapkara, District Jashpur (CG). After worship, the prosecutrix was sitting in
the temple compound when the appellant, who used to perform pooja in the temple, allegedly took her into the store room situated in the temple premises, committed
3
rape upon her, and also threatened her. On the basis of her report, the police registered the aforesaid offences against the appellant and, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet. Thereafter, on 22.12.2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after committal, transferred the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge for trial.
To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, and thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
That, the learned trial Court, relying upon the statements of P.W.2, P.W.11, and P.W.8, convicted the appellant and passed the sentence as mentioned above.
4
material prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, yet the trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant. Counsel submits that the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated, and the findings of the trial Court are based merely on surmises and conjectures without proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence deserve to be set aside.
5
In cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that the first
6
and only incident of rape committed upon her occurred on 17.08.2009, and apart from this incident no other act had taken place. She admitted that she lodged the report on 09.11.2009 at Police Station Tapkara. She denied the suggestion that between 17.08.2009 and 09.11.2009 she continued visiting the Kotebira temple and had also gone there on 26.10.2009. She further admitted that she had not informed the Sarpanch, Kotwar, or any village authority about the incident, nor had she disclosed the incident to her parents or family members upon reaching home. She admitted that she had gone to the temple on 02.11.2009 and returned home on 03.11.2009, and during her stay at the temple, some persons were with her. She further admitted that she had met the accused during this visit and had taken his blessings along with the others, yet she did not disclose the incident to her companions. She also admitted that on the day when Janak and Balidev had met the accused, the accused told them that he and the prosecutrix had illicit relations, and she came to know that this fact had been conveyed to them. She stated that it was only after learning that the accused had informed Janak and Balidev about their alleged relationship that she
7
lodged the report. She candidly admitted that had the accused not told Janak and Balidev about the alleged relationship, or had Janak and Balidev not come to know of it, she would not have lodged the report.
8
In cross-examination, the witness stated that although she and the prosecutrix had stayed in the temple overnight following the alleged incident, the prosecutrix did not tell her anything regarding any wrongful act committed by the accused during their stay. She admitted that on the day she accompanied the prosecutrix to the temple and stayed there overnight, she had not noticed any injuries on the
9
prosecutrix’s body, nor were her clothes torn. She further admitted that on the day of the alleged incident, when she and the prosecutrix had gone to the temple, the accused had not extended any threat to them. She also stated that during their entire stay at the temple and even while returning home, the accused had neither behaved badly towards them nor given any threat to kill them.
10
incident dated 17.08.2009, she continued to visit the Kotebira temple on several occasions, including on 26.10.2009 and 02.11.2009, during which she met the appellant, took his blessings, and stayed in the temple premises with other persons. Significantly, she did not disclose the alleged incident to any of the persons accompanying her, including her companions, villagers, the Kotwar, Sarpanch, or even her own family members. She further admitted that she lodged the FIR only after learning that the appellant had allegedly informed Janak and Balidev about an illicit relationship, and that if such information had not been shared by the appellant, she would not have lodged the report. This admission strikes at the root of the prosecution case and renders the allegation of forcible rape highly doubtful.
11
injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. Importantly, she categorically stated that the accused did not extend any threat to either her or the prosecutrix at any time during their stay in
the temple or while returning home. PW-1 similarly stated that neither the prosecutrix nor her father ever informed him of any such incident.
12
were recent or attributable to the appellant. It is well-settled that medical evidence of past intercourse cannot, by itself, establish the commission of rape by the accused.
lodging the FIR, absence of medical or ocular corroboration, and the complete lack of proof of any threat or force exerted upon the prosecutrix, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
13
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. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed .
compliance and necessary action.
Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge
Shoaib
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sexual intercourse was forcible rape under Section 376 IPC or consensual.
Whether the prosecutrix's testimony, with delay in FIR and contradictions, proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506-B IPC was substantiated.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Birka Shiva v The State of TelanganaRelied on¶16
SLP (Cr.) No.1445 of 2025, decided on 16-7-2025
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Aniruddha Sidar S/o Udai Lal Gond
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tapkara
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
