Mohan Das @ Mohan Vs State Of C.g.

1

The date when	The date when	The date when the
the judgment	the judgment is	judgment is uploaded on
is reserved	pronounced	the website
		Operative Full
30.01.2026	17.03.2026	-- 17.03.2026

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 703 of 2012

¶6

Judgment reserved on: 30.01.2026 Judgment delivered on: 17.03.2026

¶7

1 - Mohan Das @ Mohan Das Satnami, S/o Chaindas Satnami Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Paraswani, P.S. - Pallari, Distt. - Raipur C.G.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through:- Station House Officer, P.S. - Pallari, District- Raipur Now Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

2

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L.

¶14

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶15

C A V Judgment

¶16

The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.2012 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 202/2011. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

¶17

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix had been residing since childhood with her maternal grandfather in Village Parswani. The prosecutrix is a mentally challenged person, suffers from speech impairment and her mode of communication is understood only by her family members. On 07.09.2011 at about 11:00 a.m., the prosecutrix had gone alone towards a drain (nala) to answer the nature’s call. While she was returning, the accused Mohan allegedly noticed her alone and forcibly took her towards the roadside, near the boundary of an agricultural field. It is

¶18

3

¶19

alleged that the accused compelled her to lie on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. When the prosecutrix raised alarm, the accused slapped her. Thereafter, one Kanak Bai found the prosecutrix crying on the road in front of the field and took her to her house. Upon being questioned, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to the family members. Subsequently, Anita and Kunti Bai examined the private parts of the prosecutrix and allegedly noticed wetness. Mud was also found on her clothes. Grandfather of the prosecutrix lodged a report regarding the incident at Police Station Palari. The police registered the case and sent the prosecutrix for medical examination. Her clothes were seized and examined by the doctor and a vaginal/genital smear slide was prepared and seized. The underwear of the accused was also seized. The accused was medically examined and his undergarments were also examined. The investigating agency prepared the spot map and a separate map was also prepared by the Patwari. Statements of witnesses were recorded under the provisions of law. The accused was arrested and the seized articles were sent for chemical examination/forensic analysis. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar. The case, being triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 376, 323 of IPC against the

¶20

4

¶21

appellant, to which the appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

¶22

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, in his defence, no evidence was adduced by him.

¶23

Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 06.08.2012 finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted the the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law as well as to the evidence available on record and, therefore, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the appellant is a poor villager and works as a sound-system mechanic. He has remained in judicial custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 07.05.2011 and continues to be incarcerated. The learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-2). In her deposition before the Court, she did not support the prosecution case and did not state that she had

¶25

5

¶26

been subjected to rape. The First Information Report was lodged by her grandfather (PW-1), who himself turned hostile during trial. Similarly, prosecution witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 also turned hostile. PW-6 Kanak Bai, who allegedly brought the prosecutrix home, also did not support the prosecution story. Further, the father of the prosecutrix (PW-7) also turned hostile and did not corroborate the prosecution case, yet the learned Trial Court ignored this material contradiction and failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record. Likewise, Anand Kumar (PW-8), the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, also turned hostile and did not support the allegations against the appellant.

¶27

The learned Trial Court further erred in not properly appreciating the testimony of Dr. Snehlata Singh (PW-10), who medically examined the prosecutrix and categorically stated that no external or internal injuries were found. The medical report of the prosecutrix also records that there were no signs of injury. Moreover, the prosecution failed to produce the FSL report or any chemical examination report along with the charge-sheet so as to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. In absence of any scientific or forensic evidence, the alleged prosecution case remains uncorroborated. The learned Trial Court also failed to appreciate the medical examination of the appellant and the deposition of the doctor who conducted his MLC. The doctor clearly stated that no abrasions or injuries were found on the back, arms or any other part of the appellant’s body, which is

¶28

6

¶29

inconsistent with the prosecution allegations of a forcible act. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on misappreciation of evidence, ignoring material contradictions and absence of medical and forensic corroboration, and therefore deserves to be set aside.

¶30

On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court are legal, proper and based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record, and thus call for no interference. Non-production of FSL report is also not fatal when the oral and circumstantial evidence sufficiently establish the offence. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded a well-reasoned conviction. The appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and the conviction and sentence are liable to be affirmed.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 376 and 323 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 323 of IPC and convicted him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.

¶33

7

¶34

It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix is a mentally retarded girl. The learned trial Court, in order to assess her ability to depose, put certain questions to the prosecutrix (P.W.-2). Upon such examination, the trial Court recorded that the witness is mentally retarded, does not properly understand things and is unable to speak clearly. The maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix was also present in the Court; however, he stated that he was unable to understand the gestures made by the prosecutrix and, therefore, could not explain what she intended to convey. As a result, the witness did not provide any information with regard to the alleged incident.

¶35

The grandfather of the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) stated that the prosecutrix had not disclosed anything to him regarding the alleged incident. He further deposed that the prosecutrix had been unable to speak or understand things properly since her childhood and that she was a mentally retarded girl from birth. He also stated that he had not lodged the report against the appellant. However, he admitted his signature from A to A part of First Information Report (Ex.P/1). He, however, denied the contents written in the said FIR. Thereafter, the prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied the suggestions put to him regarding the allegations made by the prosecutrix.

¶36

Maternal aunts of the prosecutrix, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, stated that the prosecutrix had returned from the field with her clothes

¶37

8

¶38

stained. They further stated that the prosecutrix was crying and was calling out the name of Mohan. They also stated that the prosecutrix had not disclosed anything regarding the incident and that she was a dumb person. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them, during which they admitted the suggestion of the prosecution that the prosecutrix had stated that Mohan Satnami had committed rape with her. They further admitted the suggestions put by the defence that the prosecutrix had been deaf and dumb since childhood and was also mentally retarded. They also admitted that they could not directly understand what the prosecutrix had stated to them. P.W.-4 further stated that she had informed the police that the prosecutrix was crying and taking the name of Mohan and if the said fact was not mentioned in Ex.D/1, she did not know the reason for the same. P.W.-5 further stated that she had informed the police that there was swelling in the private part of the prosecutrix and if the said fact was not mentioned in Ex.D/2, she did not know the reason for the same.

¶39

The aunt of the prosecutrix (P.W.-6), the father of the prosecutrix (P.W.-7) and the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix (P.W.-8) stated that the prosecutrix did not speak properly. The father of the prosecutrix (P.W.-7) and the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix (P.W.-8) were declared hostile by the prosecution and were crossexamined, however, they denied all the suggestions put to them by the prosecution.

¶40

9

¶41

Manoj Kumar (P.W.-9) deposed that the father of the prosecutrix had informed him that the accused Mohandas was attempting to flee, whereupon they apprehended him. He further stated that the report was lodged by the grandfather of the prosecutrix.

¶42

In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he had informed the police in his statement (Ex.D/3) that the accused was running away and was subsequently caught by them. He further stated that if the said fact was not recorded in the police statement, he was unaware of the reason for the same.

¶43

Dr. Snehlata Singh (P.W.-10) stated that she had medically examined the prosecutrix and did not find any signs indicative of recent forceful sexual intercourse. She further stated that she had prepared the relevant slides and referred them for FSL examination and had submitted her report vide Ex.P/17.

¶44

In her cross-examination, she admitted the suggestion that no symptoms indicative of recent sexual intercourse were found during the medical examination of the prosecutrix.

¶45

Upon close scrutiny of the statements of all the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the prosecutrix is deaf and dumb and the learned trial Court was unable to record her statement. During the course of examination, when the learned trial Court put a query to Dr. Snehlata Singh (P.W.-10) regarding how many days prior to the medical examination the alleged sexual intercourse had taken place, the doctor stated that she was unable to specify

¶46

10

¶47

the exact time when such intercourse might have occurred, but she categorically stated that no sexual intercourse had taken place within 24 hours prior to the examination.

¶48

It is also noteworthy that no FSL report was produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court. The grandfather of the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) denied the contents of the police report. The note of the learned trial Court further indicates that the prosecutrix was unable to speak properly and was also unable to understand the gestures made to her. However, the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate these material facts and erroneously recorded a finding that Dr. Snehlata Singh had reported that sexual intercourse had been committed with the prosecutrix and relied upon the statements of Kanak Bai, Kunti Bai and Anita.

¶49

A careful reading of the testimony of Dr. Snehlata Singh (P.W.-10) along with her medical report (Ex.P/17) clearly indicates that no sexual intercourse had taken place within 24 hours prior to the examination. Furthermore, no witness has stated that he or she had seen the accused and the prosecutrix together at the relevant time. Although Manoj Kumar (P.W.-9) stated that the father of the prosecutrix had apprehended the appellant when he was allegedly running away, this fact does not find place in his police statement (Ex.D/3), thereby constituting a material omission. Moreover, the statements of the father, the grandfather and the prosecutrix do not support the prosecution case. The medical evidence also does

¶50

11

¶51

not corroborate the allegations made by the prosecution. In the absence of any legally admissible, cogent and clinching evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

¶52

In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

¶53

The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, the appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶54

12

¶55

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 .

¶56

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶57

Ruchi

¶58

RUCHI Digitally signed YADAV by RUCHI YADAV

Mohan Das @ Mohan v. State Of C.g.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Das @ Mohan v. State Of C.g.

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

Saraswati Dubey Vs Shri Alok Shukla

Buddhadas Premdas Ramteke Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Ojha Vs Union of India through C.B.I.

Smt Kamla Maheshwari Vs Mr. Alok Shukla

Sanjay Kumar Vs Rajat Bansal

Ramlagan Vs Alex Pal Menon Collector Balrampur