Chattisgarh High Court
Anoop Tirki vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
SHUBHAM SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.03.03 15:27:46
+0530
2025:CGHC:9938
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 454 of 2007
Anoop Tirki, aged about 26 years, S/o Fransis Tirki, Occupation
Agriculture, R/o Village - Ramsambha, P.S. - Bagicha, District-
Jashpur Nagar (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Bagicha, District Jashpur
(C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment On Board
(27.02.2025)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment
dated 19/05/2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 71/2005 by which, the
Appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under
Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7
years.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the morning of
31.03.2005, at around 6:00 AM, in the village of
Ramsambha, the prosecutrix (PW-4) had gone alone to a
nearby Kuilomra forest to collect Mahua. While she was
collecting Mahua, the appellant arrived and, under the
pretext of discussing Mahua collection, created an isolated
atmosphere by ensuring there was no one around. Finding
the prosecutrix alone, he grabbed her right hand and held
her waist tightly. With wrongful intent, he dragged her
towards a nearby pit. Despite her resistance, the accused
did not relent. In the pit, he forcefully threw her on the
ground and then raped her. During the struggle, her right
bangle was also broken. After the incident, the prosecutrix
returned home and informed her husband about the
incident. The next morning, she went to Bagicha police
station and lodged a First Information Report vide Exhibit
P-7. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medically examined.
The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted
by Dr. Shakuntala Nikunj (PW-6). Her medical report is
Exhibit P-10. In her report (Exhibit P-10), Dr. Shakuntala
Nikunj stated that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual
intercourse. Following the prosecutrix's medical
examination, her vaginal slides and swabs were seized.
Additionally, the prosecutrix's petticoat was also seized. A
site map of the incident location was prepared vide Exhibit
P-9. A site map (Ex.P-2) and Patwari Panchnama (Ex.P-3)
was also prepared by Patwari Placidius Toppo (PW-2). The
seized articles were sent for forensic examination (FSL), and
after recording witness statements, arresting the appellant
and upon completion of investigation, the charge sheet was
filed.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the
offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 9
witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. Statements of the
appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in
which he denied circumstances appearing against him in
prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. After hearing the parties, the trial court passed the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court.
She further submits that there are material contradictions
and omissions occurred in the statements of the
prosecutrix (PW-4) and her husband (PW-1). The
prosecutrix is not a credible witness and due to a dispute
relating to collecting Mahua, a false report has been lodged
by her against the appellant. The prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond doubt, therefore, the appellant may
be acquitted of the charges leveled against him by setting
aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State
submits that the conclusion given by the trial court
regarding conviction and sentence of the appellant is based
on sufficient and reliable evidence, which does not require
any interference. Therefore, the contention made by the
counsel for the appellant is not acceptable, hence, the
appeal may be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with utmost circumspection.
8. In this case, the prosecutrix (PW-4) is a 30-year-old married
woman. The incident is said to have taken place on
31/03/2005 at 06:00 a.m., the police report of which was
filed on the next day, i.e. on 01/04/2005. It is an
undisputed fact that the appellant's field is adjacent to the
place of incident where Mahua tree is planted. After the
police report, Dr. Shakuntala Nikunj (PW-6) conducted a
medical examination of the prosecutrix (PW-4) and
submitted a report (Exhibit P-10). According to which, no
injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix (PW-4) and
no definite opinion has been given by the doctor regarding
whether she was raped. It is said that the slide prepared by
the doctor and the prosecutrix's undergarment were sent
for chemical examination, but no examination report is
attached on record, the reason for which best known by the
prosecution. Thus, apart from the oral evidence of the
prosecutrix (PW-4), there is no corroborative evidence
available on record.
9. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar,
(2020) 3 SCC 443, the concept expressed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court regarding the assessment of the credibility
of the statement of the sole prosecutrix is as follows in
paragraphs No.-5.5 & 6:-
"5.5 With the aforesaid decisions in mind,
it is required to be considered, whether is
it safe to convict the accused solely on the
solitary evidence of the prosecutrix?
Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix
inspires confidence and appears to be
absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and
is of sterling quality?"
"6. Having gone through and considered
the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find
that there are material contradictions. Not
only there are material contradictions, but
even the manner in which the alleged
incident has taken place as per the version
of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the
examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has
stated that after jumping the fallen
compound wall accused came inside and
thereafter the accused committed rape.
She has stated that she identified the
accused from the light of the mobile.
However, no mobile is recovered. Even
nothing is on record that there was a
broken compound wall. She has further
stated that in the morning at 10 O'clock
she went to the police station and gave oral
complaint. However, according to the
investigating officer a written complaint
was given. It is also required to be noted
that even the FIR is registered at 4:00 p.m.
In her deposition, the prosecutrix has
referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW1
and others. However, Shanti Devi has not
supported the case of the prosecution.
Therefore, when we tested the version of
PW5-prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the
said witness has failed to pass any of the
tests of "sterling witness". There is a
variation in her version about giving the
complaint. There is a delay in the FIR. The
medical report does not support the case
of the prosecution. FSL report also does
not support the case of the prosecution. As
admitted, there was an enmity/dispute
between both the parties with respect to
land. The manner in which the occurrence
is stated to have occurred is not believable.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, we find that the solitary
version of the prosecutrix-PW5 cannot be
taken as a gospel truth at face value and in
the absence of any other supporting
evidence, there is no scope to sustain the
conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant and accused is to be given the
benefit of doubt."
10. Reverting to the case at hand, the prosecutrix (PW-4)
has supported the report (Ex.P-7) lodged by her in her
Court statement and stated that when she had gone to
collect Mahua, the appellant forcefully raped her there. The
prosecutrix (PW-4) has not stated that she had resisted or
shouted at the time of the alleged incident and that as a
result she or the appellant suffered any kind of injury. But
the prosecutrix has admitted that the appellant's land
adjoins the boundary of the trees from which she was
collecting the fallen Mahua and she herself stated that it is
government grass land. The prosecutrix (PW-4) and her
husband (PW-1) have admitted that they did not inform
anyone else in the village about the incident but went to the
police and reported it in the next day because they did not
have any means to go to the police station that day.
11. In this case, according to the spot map (Exhibit P-9)
prepared by Assistant Sub Inspector R.C. Ram (PW-8) as
investigating officer and the map (Exhibit P-2) prepared by
Patwari Placidius Toppo (PW-2) and Panchnama (Exhibit P-
3), the place of incident is an open place where there are
two Mahua trees and the field of the appellant is said to be
adjacent to it. In such a situation, if the appellant had
forced himself upon her, then no such mark has been found
on the body of the prosecutrix (PW-4). In the map (Exhibit
P-2) prepared by the Patwari, it is mentioned that the
Mahua which the prosecutrix had collected and later the
appellant took it to his house. This map is said to have
been prepared on the basis of the information given by the
prosecutrix. But the fact that the Mahua bought by her was
taken away by the appellant to his house was denied by the
prosecutrix in the map and her husband (PW-1) has stated
that he has no knowledge in this regard.
12. There are other contradictions in the statements of the
prosecutrix (PW-4) and her husband (PW-1) on the basis of
which the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be trusted
beyond doubt. During cross-examination on the suggestion
of the appellant's party, the prosecutrix has stated that her
family has been boycotted by the village community, but
the prosecutrix denied that the reason for boycott is this
incident and said that they have been boycotted because
their cattle had grazed the crops of the villagers. On the
other hand, her husband (PW-1) has admitted in paragraph
11 of the cross-examination that the villagers have let them
go after reporting this incident. When the husband (PW-1)
was asked that the prosecutrix has filed a false report
against the appellant regarding the dispute over Mahua,
whereas no incident of rape took place, then her husband
stated that he is stating what his wife told him. Whereas
the prosecutrix has denied the fact that she got a false
report of rape registered against the appellant due to the
dispute over collecting Mahua. The husband (PW-1) has
firstly stated in his statement that the prosecutrix (PW-1)
had a dispute and scuffle with the appellant over collecting
Mahua and the appellant had snatched the Mahua. A
similar mention is also reflected in the map (exhibit P-2)
that the appellant had taken away the Mahua collected by
the prosecutrix. Later the husband (PW-1) has stated that
the prosecutrix had informed him that the appellant had
also raped her. In cross-examination the husband (PW-1)
admitted that his and the appellant's fields are adjacent to
the place of incident.
13. In such a situation, the statement of the husband of
the prosecutrix (PW-1) has come that there was a dispute
and scuffle between the two parties over Mahua and the
appellant had snatched the Mahua and the the map also
mentions that Mahua was snatched and taken away by the
appellant, about which the prosecutrix herself is not giving
clear information and the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-
4) is not supported by any other evidence. Even the
incident of rape in an open place has been told but no
information was given by anyone in the village before or
after the report. On the other hand, the husband has
admitted that the family of the prosecutrix has been
socially boycotted by the villagers due to this incident.
Looking at the entire facts, situation and evidence, the
prosecutrix is not found to be a reliable witness beyond
doubt. Therefore, this Court finds that the conviction of the
appellant is not based on clear, sufficient and reliable
evidence, hence his conviction is not found to be upheld.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the
charges levelled against him.
15. It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. He need not to
surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force
for a period of six months in view of the provisions
contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the
original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned
forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham
