Kurukshetra Mali vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1477 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Kurukshetra Mali vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                    1




                                                         2026:CGHC:16321

   The date       The date     The date when the judgment is uploaded on
   when the      when the                       the website
 judgment is    judgment is
   reserved     pronounced

                                    Operative                   Full

 27-01-2026       09-04-2026            -                 09-04-2026



                                                                   NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                  Judgment reserved on : 27-01-2026
                 Judgment delivered on : 09-04-2026
                         CRA No. 549 of 2007
Kurukshetra Mali S/o Shri Hunnu Mali, aged about 20 years, R/o
Dumarpita, Bedipara, Thana Devbhog, Distt. Raipur (CG)
                                                                ... Appellant
                                 versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
(CG)
                                                              ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV Judgment

The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and

validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

9.5.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, Distt.

Raipur in ST No.5/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted under

Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, pay a

fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one

month.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.8.2006 while the

prosecutrix was attending the call of nature in the field, the appellant

committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereafter ran away.

She informed about this incident to her husband and in-laws and

thereafter lodged report of Ex.P/1 with the police. During investigation,

her medical examination was done, her sari, petticoat and underwear

of the accused were seized. After completing the usual investigation

charge sheet was filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate

against the appellant u/s 376 of IPC followed by framing of charge

accordingly by learned trial Court against him. The appellant abjured

the charge and prayed for trial.

03. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 13

witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section

313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances

appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and

false implication. However, no witness was examined by the accused

in his defence.

04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation

of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court

convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above.

Hence this appeal.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material

available on record. Learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that

looking to the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken

place, the prosecutrix had ample opportunity to run away from the

clutches of the appellant or raise hue and cry to attract attention of the

passersby but she did not do so, which clearly suggests that if any

such act was committed by the appellant, the prosecutrix was a

consenting party to it. In fact, there being political rivalry between the

family of the prosecutrix and that of the appellant, a false report has

been lodged against the appellant. The husband of the prosecutrix

(PW-2) has denied his police statement Ex.D/1. PW-3 mother-in-law of

the prosecutrix admits that as the prosecutrix was defamed in the

village, therefore, they lodged report with the police. The medical

evidence also does not support the prosecution case. Therefore,

considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the overall

evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to make

out a case u/s 376 of IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable

doubt and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and

he be acquitted of the said charge.

06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the

contention of the appellant would submit that in view of oral and

documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly

convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment

which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being

without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

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

available on record.

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

was charged under Section 376 of IPC and after appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and

sentenced him under this section as mentioned in the opening

paragraph of this judgment.

09. PW-1 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident she went to

the nearby field to attend the call of nature where the

accused/appellant came and committed rape upon her. Thereafter she

returned home and narrated the incident to her mother-in-law and

husband and lodged report Ex.P/1 at the police station. She states that

her medical examination was conducted after obtaining her consent as

per Ex.P/2 and the police seized her sari and petticoat as per Ex.P/3.

In cross-examination she states that the accused is her

neighbour and she knows him only since the date of incident. In para

15 she admits that after committing rape the accused wore his clothes

and she wore hers and he moved away from there and she returned

home. She states that there was mud on her body and clothes and

therefore, her husband and mother-in-law got angry at her. In para 16

she admits that after the incident a meeting was held amongst her

husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and herself throughout the night.

Since her husband and in-laws told that if the incident is not reported to

the police, they would be defamed in the society, next day she lodged

the report. In para 19 she states that Shankar is her uncle-in-law and

Lochan is maternal uncle of the accused. Both of them contested

Panch election where Lochan won. However, she denies the

suggestion that there was any quarrel with regard to this election. She

states that she came to the court with her mother-in-law, father-in-law,

uncle-in-law Shankar and father. She denies the suggestion that she

had sexual intercourse with the accused with her consent.

10. PW-2 husband of the prosecutrix states that on the date of

incident his wife/prosecutrix had gone to the field to attend the call of

nature and returned weeping. On being asked, she informed that it is

the accused/appellant who committed rape on her.

In cross-examination he admits that his wife and the accused

were known to each other. He denied to have given any statement to

the police (Ex.D/1). He states that body of his wife was stained with

mud. In para 7 he states that if the society comes to know about this

incident, he would be defamed and therefore, next day he along with

his father went to police to lodge report.

11. PW-3 mother-in-law of the prosecutrix states that on the date of

incident the prosecutrix returned home weeping and on being asked

she informed that the accused committed rape on her. In this regard a

village meeting was held and on their advice, report was lodged next

day.

In para 7 of her cross-examination she admits that all the

villagers in the village meeting had come to know about sexual

intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix. She admits that

since her daughter-in-law (prosecutrix) got defamed, report was lodged

at the police station.

12. PW-4 Shankar Lal admits his signature on seizure memo Ex.P/3

from B to B part. In cross-examination he admits that he contested

Panch election from the village of the accused and maternal uncle of

the accused namely Lochan also contested the said election. He states

that Lochan won the election, there was quarrel with the family of the

accused and 1 ½ months thereafter, report was lodged against the

accused. He states that he went with the prosecutrix to police station

for lodging report. However, he denies the suggestion that on account

of losing the election, a false report was lodged.

13. PW-8 Dr. Anju Sonwane examined the prosecutrix but did not

find any internal injury on her body. She noticed only one abrasion near

her ear which could be due to fall. She states that she did not see mud

on the body and petticoat of the prosecutrix. She advised for chemical

examination of petticoat and vaginal slide of the prosecutrix. However,

no FSL report is available on record.

14. PW-10 Dr. Ajay Khandekar medically examined the

accused/appellant and found him capable of performing sexual

intercourse. However, he did not notice any injury on his person. His

report is Ex.P/10.

15. Close scrutiny of the statements of witnesses, in particular of the

prosecutrix (PW-1) and her family members (PW-2 and PW-3) make it

clear that after the incident when she returned home, her family

members got angry at her and thereafter a social meeting was held in

the village. The prosecutrix states that she narrated the incident in Odia

language but the report was written in Hindi. She and her family

members admitted the suggestion that there was previous enmity

between the Shankar Lal, uncle-in-law of the prosecutrix, and Lochan,

maternal uncle of the accused as both of them contested election for

Panch where Lochan won. The prosecutrix also admitted that her

husband and mother-in-law got angry at her and next day she lodged

report against the accused. However, in the FIR (Ex.P/1), the cause of

delay is mentioned as "flood in the river". All this establishes a probable

motive for false prosecution.

16. The conduct of PW-1 (prosecutrix) appears unnatural and

inconsistent with the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse for the

reasons that she admits that after the alleged incident, both she and

the accused peacefully wore their clothes and left the place without any

resistance or alarm. She states that during the incident while protesting

she had bitten the hand of the accused whereas PW-10 Dr. Ajay

Khandekar who examined the accused did not find any injury on his

body. As per prosecutrix and her husband, there were mud stains on

her body and clothes whereas no mud stains were found on the body

or clothes of the prosecutrix by PW-9 Dr. Anju Sonwane and PW-13 PS

Netam, Sub Inspector (IO). Furthermore, the prosecutrix states that

she knows the accused only since the date of incident whereas her

husband states that the prosecutrix had prior acquaintance with the

accused.

17. True it is that ordinarily the evidence of the prosecutrix should

not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement

has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if her

evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. It is equally true

that while rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the

victim, a false allegation of rape causes equal distress, humiliation and

damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected

against the possibility of false implication. Indisputably, in a case of

sexual assault, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given

predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be

accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be

doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of

evidence in a criminal matter. The present case rests solely on the

testimony of the prosecutrix, which is not wholly reliable due to

contradictions and doubtful conduct. The medical evidence also lends

no support to the prosecution case at all. Thus, what emerges from the

appreciation of overall evidence is that the prosecution has utterly

failed to establish the charge under Section 376 IPC against the

accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused/

appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit

of doubt.

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment

of learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of

the charge under Section 376 of IPC.

The appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, he be set at

liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other offence.

However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023

he is directed to furnish a personal bond for a 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 alongwith an undertaking that in

the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment

or for grant of leave, he shall on receipt of notice thereon appear

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

19. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment

be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance

and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the

concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.

Sd/

MOHD Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR (Rajani Dubey) AKHTAR KHAN

Judge Date:

KHAN     2026.04.09
         13:03:43
         +0530

 Khan