Chattisgarh High Court

Gaya Prasad @ Buchu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 July, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                               1




                                                               2025:CGHC:34902
                                                                           NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                      CRA No.751 of 2007

                              Judgment reserved on : 08.05.2025
                              Judgment delivered on : 22.07.2025

Digitally
signed by   1 - Gaya Prasad @ Buchu, aged about 36 years, S/o Keshavram Sahu,
RAMAKANT
NIRALA      R/o Sahupara, Dhamdha, PS Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.)


                                                                        Appellant
                                            versus

            1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.)

                                                                   Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh Kela, PL

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgment

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 10.08.2007 passed by

the learned Session Judge, Durg (C.G.) in ST No.76/2007,

whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (1)

of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with default

stipulations.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.02.2007 at about 7

pm, when the prosecutrix had gone to keep stick wooden, she

was caught by the appellant and was subjected to sexual

intercourse by the appellant against her will. Thereafter, a case

was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. After

investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate

concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the

prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court

convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the

judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment

passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material

available on record. There are material omissions and

contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

The prosecutrix was aged about 45 years at at the time accident,

as such it is not possible for the appellant to commit rape with her

against her will. She also admitted in her cross-examination that

she tried to stop the appellant by using nails upon him, but no

such injury was found on the body of the appellant. The doctor

has also not supported the same. She further submits that the

prosecutrix is the consenting party and a false case was

registered against the appellant, but despite the same the

appellant has wrongly been convicted. Therefore, the appeal

deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned

judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely

appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly

convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the

learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 376 (1) of IPC

and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted under

Section 376, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

7. The prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that on the date of incident, when

she went to keep wood on the field, the accused being already

there caught her hand and threw her on dry grass and committed

forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she screamed, her

husband came there and then they beat the accused, thereafter

the accused ran away, thereafter they lodged report before the

Police Station concerned.

8. PW-2 husband of the prosecutrix also stated that when her wife

had gone to keep wood on the field, the accused being already

there caught her hand and threw her on dry grass and was

committing forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she

screamed, he went there hastily and then he beat the accused

and prosecutrix both, thereafter the accused ran away and on his

asking whether the accused has committed forcible sexual

intercourse with her or she did on her own and upon her replying

that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her,

thereafter they lodged report before the Police Station

concerned.

9. Dr. Geeta Bhagat (PW-4) examined the prosecutrix. She did not

find any external or internal injuries. She found bleeding in

private part of the prosecutrix, but she opined that this bleeding

was due to menstrual cycle. She gave her report (Ex-P/9). In the

cross-examination, she admitted that if the sexual intercourse is

committed against the will of a rural girl and the struggle is going

on between them, then marks of struggle can come. She also

admitted that she did not find any marks of struggle in the body of

the prosecutrix.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State

of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, held in para 15 as

under:-

"15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a

witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."

11. In light of the above, it is clear from the statements of prosecutrix

(PW-1) and husband of the prosecutrix (PW-2) that when the

husband of the prosecutrix saw his wife and the appellant in

compromise position, he beaten the accused and prosecutrix

both, thereafter lodged FIR against the appellant. PW-4 Dr.

Geeta Bhagat also did not find any internal or external injuries on

the body of the deceased, as such the statements of the

prosecutrix are not reliable and trustworthy and it cannot be ruled

out that she is not the consenting party to the act of the appellant.

Thus, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt against the appellant, as such the finding recorded by the

learned Trial Court is not sustainable.