Allowed¶41

Purushottam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2025CRA/816/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rape; Section 376 IPC; married prosecutrix; consent plea; false implication; contradictions between prosecutrix (PW1) and husband (PW2); compromising position admission; medical evidence did not prove genital injury; Dr. Runa Singh PW-9; negative FSL report Ex.P/18; benefit of doubt; acquittal; conviction and sentence set aside; Section 374(2) Cr.P.C appeal; Section 481 BNSS bail bonds; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; CRA No. 816 of 2016; decided 22/07/2025; Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of the charge framed against him; bail bonds not discharged and directed to remain operative for six months under Section 481 BNSS. ¶41

Purushottam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Though the prosecutrix alleged forcible sexual intercourse for 5-6 minutes and claimed injury to her private part, the said injury was not proved by the doctor (PW-9), who found no wound or injury on the private parts.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The husband of the prosecutrix (PW2) himself admitted seeing the appellant and the prosecutrix in a compromising position, and contradictions between the statements of the prosecutrix and her husband created doubt on the allegation that the appellant was committing forcible rape.

¶39

Key takeaways

The prosecution has completely failed to prove the allegations of rape against the appellant; consequently the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against conviction under Section 376 IPC and sentence of RI 7 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- passed on 28/05/2016 in Sessions Trial No. 55/2015 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012). Prosecution case: on 08/07/2015 the appellant dragged the married prosecutrix inside her agricultural field and committed forcible sexual intercourse (Crime No. 88/2015, FIR Ex.P/1); defence pleaded false implication and consent. Held: the prosecutrix claimed injury to her private part but PW-9 (doctor) found and proved no such injury; PW2, the husband, admitted in cross-examination having seen the appellant and the prosecutrix in a compromising position; contradictions between their statements created doubt on the allegation of forcible rape; the FSL report (Ex.P/18) was negative for human sperm. The prosecution completely failed to prove the allegations of rape; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted; his bail bonds were kept operative for six months under Section 481 BNSS.

2025:CGHC:34978

NAFR

Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JHA JHA Date:2025.07.23 18:05:01 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 816 of 2016

¶7

Purushottam S/o Shri Briz Lal Mahar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bodal, P.S. Ambagarh Chowki Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶8

Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG

¶14

(Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge) Judgment on Board

¶15

Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶16

22/07/2025

¶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 28/05/2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 55/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/Special Judge under (POCSO) Act, 2012 (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years along with fine of Rs. 2000/-, with default stipulations.

¶18

Case of the prosecution is that the Prosecutrix (PW1) lodged a report

¶19

¶20

at Police Station- Ambagarh to the extent that on 08/07/2015 at about 3:30 pm, when she had gone for picking up vegetables at her agricultural field, the appellant who was previously hidden himself there, suddenly appeared; dragged her inside the agricultural field; and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When her husband (PW2) came at field, the appellant fled away from the spot.

¶21

Based on the above report of the prosecutrix (PW1), a crime No. 88/2015 under Section 376 of the IPC was registered and FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered. On being found the evidence against the appellant for committing the offence, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. After framing the charges, the same was read over to the appellant, which he denied and claimed to be tried.

¶22

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 09 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.

¶23

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28/05/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. In fact, when the husband of the Proecutrix seen her in compromise position with the appellant, then under the pressure,

¶25

¶26

she has lodged the report against the appellant. He would submit that since the Prosecutrix, who is a married lady, was consenting party, therefore, the offence under Section 376 of the IPC is not made out against the appellant.

¶27

6. Per Contra, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its true perspective, as such, the impugned judgment requires no interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

It is an undisputed fact that the Prosecutrix (PW1) is a married lady. She in her deposition has categorically deposed that when she had gone to the agricultural field for picking up the vegetables, the appellant, after dragging her and tightening her mouth from shawl, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, and when her husband (PW2), seeing the appellant, screamed, the appellant fled away from there. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted the fact that due to forcible sexual intercourse with her, she had sustained injury over private part.

¶30

PW2-Husband of the Prosecutrix has stated in his deposition that when he was going to the agricultural field, the appellant was committing rape with his wife. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had seen the appellant and the Prosecutrix in compromising position, then he got annoyed and screamed, then the appellant, after

¶31

¶32

carrying his underwear in his hand, fled away from the spot.

¶33

PW-9, Dr. Runa Singh has stated in her deposition that she had medically examined the Prosecutrix and during medical examination, the Doctor had not found any wound or injury on the thighs or private parts of survivor. The Doctor only found redness and bruise on the back of prosecutirx.

¶34

In the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the accused stated that there was a relationship between him and the prosecutrix since a long period and she lodged the false report against him because on the date of incident the husband of the prosecutrix seen her in his company.

¶35

In the present case, the FSL report is Ex.P/18. According to the said report, Article-A i.e. Petticoat, Article-B i.e. Underwear and Article- C i.e. vaginal slides of the Prosecutrix, does not contain any human sperm. The FSL report is negative.

¶36

Perusal of the statement of the PW1- Prosecutrix, though it comes out that the appellant had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her for 5-6 minutes and she sustained injury over her private part too, but looking to the medical evidence, wherein PW-9 has admitted that there was no injury over the private part of the prosecutrix. Apart from this, PW2- Husband of the Prosecutrix has admitted in his crossexamination that when he had seen the appellant and the Prosecutrix in compromising position, he got annoyed and screamed, then the appellant fled away from the spot. There are contradictions in the

¶37

¶38

statement of the prosecutrix and her husband.

¶39

In close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the Prosecutrix (PW1) and her husband (PW2), it appears that though there is an allegation of forceful sexual intercourse for a duration of 5-6 minutes and the Prosecutrix sustained injury on her private part, but the said injury has not been proved by the doctor. It has further created a doubt on the allegation against the appellant that he was committing forceful rape because, the husband of the prosecutrix himself has seen his wife and the appellant in compromising position and when he screamed, then only the appellant fled away from the place of incident.

¶40

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the allegations of rape against the appellant and therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is setaside.

¶41

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of charge framed against him. The appellant is reported to be 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.

¶42

The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶43

Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶44

Rahul/Gowri

Purushottam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam 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

Smt. Tijiya Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sato Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhikham Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Simran Pal Singh Sabharwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivprasad Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh