Anil Badi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1350 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Anil Badi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                   1




                                              2026:CGHC:15893


                                                            NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                        CRA No. 88 of 2008


      Anil Badi, son of Shri Dhanpal Badi, aged about 23 years,
       (wrongly mentioned 28 years in the impugned judgment),
       resident of village Kapathbahri, Police Station Sitapur,
       District Surguja (C.G.)
                                                     ---- Appellant
                                 Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh Through : The police Station Sitapur,
       District Surguja (C.G.)

                                                  ---- Respondent

For Appellant. - Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate.

For Respondent -        Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L.



                Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

                        Judgment On Board


07/04/2026

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 03.12.2007 passed by the 3 rd

Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur, Surguja

(C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.122/2007 convicting and

sentencing the accused/appellant as under :-

        Conviction                         Sentence
Under Section 363 of IPC     R.I. for 7 years with fine of
                             Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
                             fine amount to undergo additional
                             R.I. for 01 months.

Under Section 366-A of IPC R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 01 months.

Under Section 506-B of IPC R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 01 months.

Under Section 376(1) of IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that mother of prosecutrix

gave oral report at police station to the effect that her

daughter (PW-1), aged about 10 years, had gone on

11.12.2006 at about 3:00 p.m. to the Godha field for cutting

grass/fodder, and although her another daughter returned

from there, but prosecutrix (PW-1) did not come back home.

On the basis of the said oral information, missing report No.

26/05 (Ex.P-16) was registered by Head Constable Nirmal

Prasad (PW-5). When the prosecutrix (PW-1) was traced

during the course of search, she stated that at the time of

the incident she had gone, along with her younger sister and

brother, to cut grass near the forest, at about 3:00 p.m., her

sister told her, "Let us go to Bishunpur forest to pluck datoon

and mukhari twigs." Thereupon, the prosecutrix (PW-1)

accompanied her sister to Bishunpur forest for plucking

datoon. In the said forest, the accused and his two

companions met them, caught hold of the prosecutrix (PW-

1), enticed and induced her away, and took her to the house

of the accused. Thereafter, the accused allegedly took her

near a tree on the other side and committed forcible rape

upon her. The accused and his companions had first

apprehended the prosecutrix in the forest. The next day, the

accused brought the prosecutrix (PW-1) to Ambikapur on

the pretext of solemnizing a court marriage and kept her at

the house of his maternal uncle at Namna, where the

accused again committed forcible rape upon her. The

accused had also threatened the prosecutrix with a knife,

telling her that if she disclosed the incident, he would kill her.

3. After searching for two or three days, the father (PW-3) of

the prosecutrix went to Ambikapur. On seeing her father, the

accused fled away, and the father (PW-3) brought the

prosecutrix back home. Thereafter, a village meeting was

convened, and as the accused had absconded, the present

report was lodged. Upon receiving the aforesaid information,

Head Constable Saklu Ram (PW-4) recorded the FIR (Ex.P-

1). On 06.01.2007, constable reduced into writing the

statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) as narrated by her. On

the same date, the Investigating Officer, Head Constable

Saklu Ram (PW-4), also recorded the statement of the

complainant and the statement of father of prosecutrix (PW-

3) as narrated by them.

4. During the course of investigation, Head Constable Saklu

Ram (PW-4) seized one pink-coloured undergarment from

the complainant in the presence of witnesses under seizure

memo Ex. P-4. On the same date, consent of the

prosecutrix (PW-1) and her father (PW-3) was obtained

under Ex. P-9, for medical examination of the prosecutrix

(PW-1), and submitted an application before the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Sitapur, under Ex. P-10 seeking

permission for such examination. Upon permission being

granted, on the same date, he submitted an application

under Ex. P-11 for medical examination of the prosecutrix.

Pursuant thereto, Dr. (Smt.) Sanyogita Painkra (PW-8)

conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix and

submitted her report under Ex. P-19.

5. Head Constable Saklu Ram (PW-5), on 07.01.2006,

prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence in

accordance with the narration given by the prosecutrix.

6. On 24.01.2007, Head Constable Saklu Ram (PW-4), after

giving intimation to the relatives of the accused under Ex. P-

12, arrested the accused under arrest memo Ex. P-13. The

constable also seized the undergarment worn by the

accused at the time of the incident and submitted an

application under Ex. P-14 before the Medical Officer,

Sitapur, for medical examination of the accused. Pursuant

thereto, Dr. S.N. Paikara (PW-2) medically examined

accused and gave his report under Ex. P-6 opining that the

accused is physically competent to perform sexual

intercouse. On 25.01.2007, Halka Patwari Arvind prepared

the spot map (nazri naksha) vide Ex.P-3. During

investigation, the Investigating Officer, Head Constable

Saklu Ram (PW-4), also recorded the statement of sister of

prosecutrix on 12.02.2007. The constable further submitted

an application for radiological examination for determination

of the age of the prosecutrix (PW-1). Pursuant thereto, Dr.

M.K. Jain (PW-6) submitted his report under Ex. P-17

opining that the radiological age of the prosecutirx was

between 14 to 16 years.

7. After completing the usual investigation, charge sheet was

filed against the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366,

376, 506-B of IPC and the learned trial Court framed

charges against the accused/appellant under Sections 363,

366-A, 376(1) and 506-B of IPC.

8. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution

examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statement of the

accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing

against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and

false implication. Three defence witnesses were also

examined in the case.

9. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective

parties and considering the material available on record has

convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as

mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is

contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and

the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further

submits that there is contradictions and omission in the

evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) to that of her statement

recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which render her

testimony doubtful but the learned Trial Court did not

consider this aspect of the matter and passed the impugned

judgment. Learned counsel also submits that the alleged

incident took place on 11.12.2006 and the FIR was lodged

on 06.07.2007, as such there is inordinate and unexplained

delay of about more than 06 months, which also render the

prosecution case doubtful. It has been also contended that

according to radiologist report (Ex.P-17), the radiological

age of the prosecutirx was between 14 to 16 years and as

per medical jurisprudence, two years difference on either

side is possible, as such the prosecutrix on the date of

incident was major and she was the consenting party to the

act of the accused. Learned counsel also submits that

medical evidence of Dr. Sanyogita Painkra (PW-8) clearly

established that the prosecutrix was habitual for sexual

intercourse and no injury was noticed on her body, which

also lend supports of prosecutrix being consenting party. It

has been also submitted by learned counsel that there was

love affair between the accused and the prosecutrix and she

herself accompanied the accused and did not resist the act

of the accused and came to his disposal which clearly

speaks in volume regarding her clear cut consent but the

learned Trial Court did not appreciate these facts and

recorded perverse finding of conviction. Thus, considering

all the aforesaid circumstances and evidence, the appeal

deserves to be allowed setting aside the impugned

judgment.

11. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has

been argued by the State counsel that the conviction of the

accused/appellant is strictly in accordance with law and

there is no infirmity in the same.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

13. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the

learned trial Court framed charges against the

accused/appellant under Sections Sections 363, 366-A,

376(1) and 506-B of IPC, and after appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the

accused/appellant accordingly.

14. The question which arises for consideration before this

Court is whether the Prosecutrix on the date of incident was

minor ?

15. According to the prosecution, the Prosecutrix (PW-2), at the

time of incident i.e. 11.12.2006, was aged 13 years.

16. The father of prosecutrix (PW-3), in para 7 of his evidence,

has stated that the age of Prosecutrix (PW-1) was 13 years.

In cross-examination, this witness has denied this

suggestion that the prosecutrix (PW-1) was more than 18

years of age but this witness in support of his testimony with

regard to the age of prosecutrix, did not disclose the date of

birth of the prosecutrix in his statement.

17. The prosecution, in order to ascertain the age of the

prosecutrix (PW-1) sent her to Govt. Hospital for x-ray

(ossification test) which was conducted by Dr. M.K. Jain

(PW-6), radiologist, who gave his report under Ex.P-17,

opining that the radiological age of the prosecutrix (PW-1)

was between 14 - 16. In cross-examination, this witness

has admitted this suggestion of defence that the process of

joining of bones is affected by climate, diet and genetic,

however, he denied this suggestion that age of the

prosecutrix is greater than the age stated by him.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajak Mohammad vs. State

of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2018) 9 SCC 248 has

held in Para 9 and 10 as under :-

"9. While it is correct that the age determined on the basis of a radiological examination may not an accurate determination and sufficient margin either way has to be allowed, yet the totality of the facts stated above read with the report of the radiological examination leaves room for ample doubt with regard to the correct age of the prosecutrix. The benefit of the aforesaid

doubt, naturally, must go in favour of the Accused.

10. We will, therefore, have to hold that in the present case the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the alleged occurrence. If that is so, based on the evidence on record, already referred to, we will further have to hold that the possibility of the prosecutrix being a consenting party cannot be altogether ruled out."

19. Applying aforesaid ratio of law in Rajak (supra) and the well

accepted method of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, in the

case in hand, although the radiological examination

assessed the age of the prosecutrix to be between 14 - 16

years, the radiologist has categorically admitted that the

process of ossification and joining of bones is affected by

several variable factors such as climate, dietary conditions,

and genetic constitution, which may accelerate or slow bone

development. It is also a well-settled principle in medical

jurisprudence that radiological age determination is not

exact and carries a permissible margin of variation of two

years on either side. Therefore, applying the accepted

margin of two years, the upper age limit of the prosecutrix

could extend up to 18 years. In these circumstances, the

possibility that the prosecutrix was about 18 years of age at

the time of the incident cannot be ruled out and must be

given due consideration. So, this Court set aside the finding

of learned Trial Court holding the prosecutrix to be minor

and held that she was major at the time of incident.

20. The question which arises for consideration before this

Court whether the prosecutrix (PW-1) was subjected to rape

forcefully by the accused or not.

21. This Court delve in deeper in the evidence of prosecutrix

(PW-1), wherein she has stated that on the date of the

incident, she, along with her brother and sister, had gone to

the forest for cutting jatangi (oil-seed grass). At the relevant

time, Dhelki, the sister of the accused, came there and

dragged her towards the forest, where the accused was

already present. She has further stated that her brother and

sister opposed the act of Dhelki. Thereafter, the accused

caught hold of her hands and legs, stuffed a cloth into her

mouth, and threatened to kill her if she screamed. She

further deposed that the sister of the accused dragged her

to the accused and then left her there. Thereafter, the

accused removed her undergarment, forcibly threw her to

the ground after assaulting her, and committed forcible rape

upon her. Thereafter, the accused took her to his house at

Kapatbahri. She has stated that while there, she attempted

to escape on the pretext of answering the call of nature, but

the parents of the accused confined her inside the house

and told her to stay there. She further stated that on the

night of the incident, at about 12:00 to 1:00 a.m., she

somehow managed to run away, and at that time the

accused was also accompanying her. Thereafter, the

parents of the accused made her sit in a bus along with the

accused, and the accused took her to the house of his

maternal uncle at Namnakala, where she remained for two

days. Subsequently, the parents of the accused came there

and took her to Court for marriage; however, the Court

official informed them that since she had not attained

marriageable age, the marriage could not be solemnized,

and accordingly, the parents took her back from the Court.

She has also stated that the accused did not establish

physical relations with her at his maternal uncle's house.

Thereafter, the accused brought her from Namna to Darima

turn, where her father, who had been searching for her,

found her and took her back to the house at Kapatbahri.

22. In paragraph 8 of her cross-examination, the prosecutrix

admitted that apart from them there were many other

passengers in the bus and that the bus was overcrowded.

She further admitted that she did not inform anyone that she

was with the accused or that she had been forcibly

abducted and raped by him, and voluntarily stated that she

remained silent because she was afraid that the accused

would stab her with a knife. The prosecutrix (PW-1) denied

the suggestion that she had been having an affair with the

accused for the past two years.

23. Father of prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated that on 11.12.2006,

prosecutrix (PW-1) along with his daughter and son went

forest for cutting jatangi (oil seeds grass) but she did not

come home back at night. At evening, his daughter told him

that Dhelki Bai, sister of accused, forcibly took the

prosecutrix to the forest to pluck tooth stick. He has also

stated that as he was ill and it was night, so he did not do

anything and in the morning, his wife went to village

Sarpanch and informed him that prosecutrix (PW-1) was

missing and accused/appellant had abducted her. He has

also stated that the day after the incident, his wife went to

Sitapur police station with Sahadan and lodged missing

report. She has also stated on 13.12.2006, when he

regained consciousness and somewhat recovered, he

boarded a truck to search for prosecutrix (PW-1) and got off

at Kharsia Naka Ambikapur seeing prosecutrix, where

accused/appellant, his parents and prosecutrix (PW-1) were

also there. He has also stated that when asked, the

prosecutrix (PW-1) said that on the date of incident,

accused committed rape with her and on the same day at

night, accused forcefully took the prosecutrix to Ambikapur

where he kept the prosecutrix in his maternal uncle's house

for two days.

24. In para 12 of cross, this witness has admitted this

suggestion that accused/appellant had dressed his daughter

(PW-1). He denied this suggestion that his daughter was

having love affair with accused/appellant prior to two years

of the incident the voluntarily said that accused forcibly

dressed his daughter. This witness in para 16 voluntarily

stated that after 2 days of the incident, they lodged the

report. This witness has also admitted that after the incident,

a village panchayat was also convened after 6-5 days of the

incident but the accused/appellant had not attended the

meeting, therefore, it remained inconclusive.

25. From the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), it is clear that

that her conduct was not wholly consistent with that of a

person acting entirely against her will. In her cross-

examination, she admitted that while travelling in an

overcrowded public bus with the accused, she did not raise

any alarm or inform any passenger that she had allegedly

been abducted or sexually assaulted, despite having the

opportunity to do so. She further admitted that she remained

with the accused for about two days at his maternal uncle's

house at Namnakala, during which period she herself stated

that no physical relations were established there. Her

evidence also shows that she accompanied the accused to

several places, including his house, the bus journey,

Namnakala, and thereafter to Court for marriage, without

any overt attempt to escape or seek help from independent

persons, except her explanation that she was under threat

from the accused. These circumstances, particularly her

continued company with the accused without protest before

strangers or public authorities, certainly may give rise to an

inference that she was a consenting party to the act of the

accused/appellant.

26. From the testimony of the father of the prosecutrix (PW-3),

is hearsay in nature regarding the actual occurrence. He

admitted that despite being informed on the very evening of

the incident that Dhelki Bai had taken the prosecutrix away,

no immediate report was lodged, and the missing report

came to be lodged only after two days of the incident by his

wife. According to the FIR, the date of incident is 11.12.2006

and the date of FIR is 06.01.2007, as such there is delay of

more than six months. Such delay in reporting weakens the

the prosecution case. Further, His statement that he found

the prosecutrix in the company of the accused and his

parents at a public place, namely Kharsia Naka, Ambikapur,

also suggestive of the fact that that the accused was moving

openly with her rather than secretly concealing her. These

circumstances, when read together, create doubt regarding

the allegation of forcible abduction and support the defence

contention that the prosecutrix may have accompanied the

accused voluntarily but the learned trial Court did not

appreciate this fact and recorded perverse finding. In these

circumstances, the appellant is definitely entitled to be

acquitted of the charges leveled against him by extending

him benefit of doubt.

27. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the

accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366-A, 506-B and

376 (i) of the IPC and sentenced imposed thereunder are

hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said charges by

extending him benefit of doubt.

28. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that appellant

Anil Bandi by the name of Anil Pawle was arrested in

connection with Crime No.592/2025 for the offence under

Sections 303(2), 317(2), 3(5), 111 of BNS and had been in

jail since 31.08.2025. He has been released on bail on

06.01.2025. It has also been brought to the notice of this

Court that the appellant in this case has been released on

bail on 15.07.2009. Therefore, his bail bond in connection

with this case shall remain in operation for a period of six

months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. (new Section 481 of BNSS).

29. 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.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde