State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramchander

Ramchander, S/o Ratti Bhuihar, aged about 35 Years, R/o Purandih, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent

¶10

For Appellant/State : Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent : None.

¶11

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶13

Judgment on Board 11.03.2026

¶14

Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

¶15

This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 02.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 435/2011, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 450 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by extending the benefit of doubt.

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of 02.06.2011 at about 02:00 a.m., the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house along with her three children, while her husband (PW-1) had gone to village

¶17

2

¶18

Leelapatthar for work. At that time, the accused/respondent allegedly entered the house of the prosecutrix by scaling the wall and committed rape upon her against her will and without her consent and also threatened her to life. According to the prosecution, at about 4:00-5:00 a.m., the husband of the prosecutrix (PW-1) returned home and saw the accused/respondent inside the house with the prosecutrix, whereupon he informed the villagers and the accused/respondent was taken out. Thereafter, a village meeting was convened and the prosecutrix was sent to her parental house. Subsequently, on 06.07.2011, prosecutrix lodged an FIR (Ex.P-4) against the accused/respondent.

¶19

During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3. After obtaining her consent, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-9 Dr. J.P. examined her and did not notice any injury on the person of the prosecutrix either internally or externally and also did not give any definite opinion regarding commission of recent sexual intercourse and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-10. Accused/respondent was taken into custody vide Ex.P-16. Vide Ex.P-8, vaginal slide of the prosecutrix was seized. Seized articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination, however, no FSL report has been brought on record.

¶20

Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

¶21

The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges leveled against him.

¶22

3

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent despite the fact that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-2) supports the prosecution case. He further submits that the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction. He also submits that the statements of husband of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and daughter of the prosecutrix (PW-3) corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix and establish the presence of the respondent inside the house during the night. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside.

¶24

We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶25

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

¶26

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶27

Prosecutrix (PW-2), aged about 30 years, in her deposition stated that on the night of incident, she was sleeping in her house along with her three children, at that time, the respondent entered the house and threatened her with a knife and committed sexual intercourse with her twice against her will. She further stated that the accused/respondent remained in the house during the night. According to her, when her husband came in the morning and knocked at the door, the accused/respondent did not allow the door to

¶28

4

¶29

be opened, however, her daughter opened the door. When her husband entered the house, he saw the accused/respondent holding her while she was trying to get up, whereupon her husband closed the door from outside. She also stated that her daughter had seen her in that condition with the accused/respondent, and thereafter villagers gathered at the house while the accused remained seated in the room and did not attempt to flee.

¶30

Husband of the prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that the accused/respondent was known to him as they used to work together and the accused used to visit his house. He further stated that on the date of incident, he had gone to village Leelapatthar for labour work and when he returned home in the morning, he saw the accused/respondent lying on the ground with his wife. Thereafter, he closed the door from outside and called the villagers. In his cross-examination, he admitted that during the village meeting, he had stated that his wife/prosecutrix had allowed the accused/respondent to enter the house and therefore he would not keep her with him and accordingly, she was sent to her parental home.

¶31

Daughter of the prosecutrix (PW-3) also stated that on the night of incident, when she woke up, she saw the respondent lying on the floor with her mother (the prosecutrix), and thereafter she closed the door. Further, brother of the prosecutrix (PW-4) also stated that his brother-in-law (PW-1) told him during village meeting that he would not keep the prosecutrix with him and asked him to take to her parental house, as he and the villagers had seen the accused/respondent and the prosecutrix together inside the house.

¶32

From perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it appears that the prosecutrix, who was admittedly a major, was a consenting party in the alleged incident. The circumstances show that when her husband suddenly returned home,

¶33

5

¶34

he found the prosecutrix with the accused/respondent inside the house. It is also important to note that the alleged incident took place on 02.06.2011, whereas the FIR (Ex.P-4) was lodged on 06.07.2011, i.e., after a delay of about one month and four days. Although the prosecutrix stated that a village meeting was held after the incident and that she thereafter went to her parental house, the evidence on record shows that she had also come to Ramanujganj, where the police station is situated, yet no report was lodged at that time. The explanation given by the prosecutrix for such delay does not appear satisfactory in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the allegation that the accused/respondent had threatened the prosecutrix with a knife is not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P-4) and appears to have been stated for the first time during her deposition before the Court, which is a material improvement over her earlier version. The evidence on record also shows that after the incident a village meeting was held, wherein the husband of the prosecutrix expressed suspicion that his wife had allowed the accused/respondent to enter the house. In that meeting, he refused to keep her with him and sent her to her parental house. The conduct of the husband and the circumstances in which the prosecutrix was sent to her parental home create doubt regarding the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse. Thus, upon careful scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish that on the date of incident, accused/respondent had forcibly entered the house of the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will.

¶35

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused/respondent of the alleged offences. The findings recorded by the

¶36

6

¶37

learned trial Court are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence available on record so as to warrant interference in this acquittal appeal.

¶38

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent is hereby dismissed.

¶39

Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶40

Akhilesh

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Ramchander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Ramchander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gore Lal Kashyap Vs Sindhu @ Tarachand and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Sindhu @ Tarachand

Rajesh Kumar Lahre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and another

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Somaru Nageshiya @ Ranglal Nageshiya

Lalita Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh