Smt. Taran Bai vs Girdhari Ram Lodhi
2026 Latest Caselaw 1756 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Taran Bai vs Girdhari Ram Lodhi on 17 April, 2026

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                        1




                                                           2026:CGHC:17535-DB

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

                                       Operative                  Full

  20-03-2026      17-04-2026                 -                 17-04-2026



                                                                         NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                     Judgment reserved on : 20-03-2026
                     Judgment delivered on : 17-04-2026

                              ACQA No. 654 of 2019

Smt. Taran Bai W/o Barati Ram Lodhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Parasbod,
P.S. Saja, District- Bemetara, Chattisgarh
                                                    ... Appellant/complainant


                                     versus
1 - Girdhari Ram Lodhi S/o Late Rewaram Lodhi Aged About 43 Years R/o
Parasbod, P.S. Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.


2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Saja, District-
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ... Respondents


For Appellant             :     Mr. PR Patankar and            Ms.       Vartika
                                Shrivastava, Advocates.
For Respondent No.1       :     Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                Shashawat Rai, Advocate.

For Respondent No.2       :     Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
                                       2

                    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
              Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ
                               CAV Judgment
Per Rajani Dubey, J

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment

dated 11.7.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in ST

No.23/2016 acquitting the respondent No.1/accused of the charges under

Sections 452 and 376/34 of IPC.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.8.2012 at 12 noon the

prosecutrix lodged a report against respondent No.1/accused and co-

accused Meenaram, who are her brothers-in-law (Devar), that last night at 1

am both the accused persons unauthorizedly entered her house and

committed rape upon her turn by turn. When she tried to raise alarm, they

threatened her of life and also hit on her head with a liquor bottle. Based on

this report, offence u/s 376(2) (D), 506 Part-II, 323 and 450 of IPC was

registered against them. During investigation, medical examination of the

prosecutrix was done, spot map was prepared and statements of the

witnesses were recorded. However, for want of sufficient evidence the police

filed a closure report on 22.5.2013. Thereafter, the prosecutrix filed a

complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja and after

recording statements of the prosecutrix and the witnesses u/s 200 and 202 of

CrPC, complaint case under Sections 376(2) and 452 of IPC was registered

against the accused persons and summons were issued to them. After

appearance of the accused and committal proceedings, the matter was

received for trial by learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara.

03. During the course of trial co-accused Meenaram died. Learned trial

Court framed charges under Sections 452 and 376/34 of IPC against the

respondent No.1/accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial.

In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 06 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 due to property

dispute. In his defence, he examined two witnesses.

04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the

respondent No.1/accused of all the charges by the impugned judgment.

Hence this appeal.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that the

impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on

record. He submitted that learned trial Court was not justified in holding that

the wounds suffered by the complainant were result of a motor accident and

not that of a rape incident. It has erred by not considering the medical

examination report of the prosecutrix which goes to show that the injuries

suffered by the prosecutrix were result of her rape and subsequent hitting of

bottle on her head as stated by her in her deposition. Learned trial Court did

not consider the contents of the spot map wherein at para 1 it describes the

spot where the accused at the time of rape hit the prosecutrix with bottle and

the pieces of broken bottle and bangles were visible. PW-5 clearly stated that

the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix and she was carrying with her

blood stained saree and there were stitches on her forehead. In cross-

examination she stated that the prosecutrix told her that her life was in

danger. However, this evidence has not been properly appreciated by learned

trial court. Merely on the basis of certain irrelevant contradictions and

omissions learned trial Court recorded an erroneous finding of acquittal in

favour of the accused. The prosecutrix/complainant has categorically stated

about the act of the accused and she remained firm in cross-examination

also. Thus, looking to the overall evidence on record coupled with conduct of

the accused, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the

respondent/accused be held guilty of the charges leveled against him.

Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Wahid

Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 AIR SCW 7410; Vijay @ Chinee

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 AIR SCW 5510; and State of UP Vs.

Chhoteylal, 2011 AIR SCW 662.

06. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused would submit that the

inconsistent statements were made by the complainant in her complaint and

her testimony. She accepts in her deposition that walls of her house were

nearly 10 feet high and could not be climbed by anyone without using some

type of support. She also states that she was in deep sleep and did not raise

any alarm when respondent No.1 and co-accused Meenaram allegedly

entered her house and committed sexual assault. She states that she told

about the incident to PW-4 but this witness has completely denied it. The

independent witness PW-4 has turned hostile and further, husband of the

complainant PW-5 and her aunt PW-6 have also not supported the version of

the complainant. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and

documentary evidence on record and rightly acquitted respondent

No.1/accused of all charges. There is no substance in the instant appeal and

therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Dola @

Dolagobinda Pradhan and another Vs. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC

695; Santosh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443; Mahendra

Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 7 SCC 157; HD

Sundara and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581; Mallapa

and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544; Babu Saheb

Agouda Rudragoudar and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC

149; judgment dated 24.4.2024 of High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in

CRA No.388/1995 in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Devilal; and the

judgment dated 8.7.2025 of this Court in CRA No.1735/2019 in the case of

Shrawan Kumar Binjhiya and others Vs. State of CG.

07. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/State has duly

assisted the Court.

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

available on record.

09. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the respondent

No.1/accused was charged under Sections 452 and 376/34 of IPC and after

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court acquitted

him of both the charges by the impugned judgment.

10. PW-3 prosecutrix states that both the accused persons are real

brothers of her husband. On 24.8.2012 at about 12 in the night while she was

alone in the house and sleeping, by climbing the six-foot wall adjoining their

roof, the accused persons came onto the roof and then entered the house by

coming down the stairs. There is no door at the end of the staircase; it opens

directly from the outer part of the house onto the open roof. Thereafter, they

committed rape upon her. They also hit on her head with an empty liquor

bottle as a result of which she fell unconscious. She states that it being night,

she did not go to police station and next day she informed about the incident

to one Devlu Raut and thereafter went to police station Saja but her report

was not written by Head Constable Anjor Lal as there was no Station House

Officer. Next day on 27.8.2012 she went to the jail at Bemetara to meet her

husband and on being asked when she told him that the police has not yet

arrested the accused persons, he advised her to go to office of

Superintendent of Police with copy of FIR. So on 27.8.2012 she went to the

office of SP and submitted copy of FIR and next day went to Saja police

station where TI told her that she lodged a false report and threatened her of

sending to Vidhwa Ashram. When she told him of protesting, he sent her to

the house of her maternal uncle at village Surujpura where she stayed for 2-3

days and then returned to her parental house at Bijetara. She states that

when the police did not take any action on her report, she filed a complaint

case before the Court.

11. In cross-examination she admits that both the accused persons are her

real brothers-in-law (Devar). She states that there is land dispute between

them and the accused persons. The land which was mutated in her name by

her husband was got mutated by the accused persons in their name in

connivance with the Patwari. She filed a case against this act of the accused

but somehow the accused persons procured order in their favour. She states

that she filed an appeal before the High Court and also a case before the

Court at Bemetara. She states that today she does not remember the number

of cases filed by them. She states that after this dispute she filed a case u/s

506 Part-II against accused Meenaram in which he was acquitted. She

admits that on the report of Meenaram, a criminal case was registered

against her husband. She admits that after this incident, a case u/s 307 of

IPC was registered against them for attempting to commit murder of

Meenaram. She states that it was a simple fight and they were acquitted.

12. In para 17 she admits that 20-25 days prior to filing of this complaint

case, she was released on bail in connection with offence u/s 307 of IPC. She

admits that at that time her husband and son were not released on bail and

they were in jail. She states that the walls of her house are ten feet high and it

cannot be climbed without any support. In para 23 she states that when she

went to police station for lodging report, Anjor Sahu (Head Constable) did not

lodge her report as higher authority (SHO) was not there. In para 24 she

states that even after arrival of SHO, no report was registered at her instance.

In para 25 she states that the police officer told her that she has filed a false

complaint against the accused, and she keeps filing false complaints. If she

files such false complaints again, they will send her to a widow's home and

told her to behave well with the accused.

In para 29 she admits that she also filed a case against her parents

seeking half of the share in the land. She denies the suggestion that on the

date of incident, hand of accused Meenaram was fractured and it was

plastered. In para 31 she admits that the main dispute between them is in

relation to six acres of land which gave rise to all other disputes. In para 35

she admits that in all the cases instituted at their instance against the

accused persons, decision was given in favour of the accused persons.

13. PW-1 Jagdish Chauhan, PW-2 Balram Verma and PW-4 Devlu Raut

have not supported the prosecution case. Rather PW-2 admits that when the

police brought the prosecutrix, she was completely healthy and there was no

injury on her body. PW-4 admits that in order to grab the land of the accused

persons, the prosecutrix has implicated them in many cases.

14. PW-5 husband of the prosecutrix states that while he was in jail, her

wife/prosecutrix came there and informed that the accused persons

committed rape on her. In cross-examination he states on the false report of

his brother u/s 307 of IPC, he was sent to jail. This report was lodged against

his wife and son also and they remained in jail for this offence. He admits that

in all those cases instituted by them against accused Meenaram, he was

acquitted. He admits that civil cases were also decided in favour of the

accused persons. In para 14 he states that his wife did not inform Kotwar or

her mother-in-law or parents or anyone about the incident. In para 15 he

states that यह कहना सही है कि पुलिस वालों ने कहा था कि तुम्हारी झूठी शिकायत के आधार

पर आरोपीगण को गिरफतार नहीं करेंगे, तुम ऐसी शिकायत करोगे तो तुम्हें वृद्धा आश्रम छोड़ देंगे।

यह कहना सही है कि आरोपीगण के विरूद्ध बार-बार करने पर पुलिस वालों ने मेरी पत्नी को ग्राम

सुरजपुरा छोड़ दिये थे। जिस दिन मेरी पत्नी घटना बता रही है, उस दिन आरोपी मीनाराम के हाथ में

प्लास्टर बंधा था या नहीं बंधा इसके बारे में मेरी पत्नी नहीं बतायी थी।

15. PW-6 aunt of the prosecutrix states that the prosecutrix informed her

that the accused persons committed rape on her. She states that blood was

oozing from her head injury and her saree and blouse were stained with

blood which were kept in a bag. She states that there was stitch on her head

and that she did not inform as to how she suffered head injury.

16. DW-1 Chandrashekhar and DW-2 Manish Singh Rajput supported the

defence of the accused persons that there is land dispute between the

parties. DW-1 states that he saw the prosecutrix gong on motorcycle with

someone and falling off the motorcycle. He states that she sustained injuries

due to fall from motorcycle.

17. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecutrix is not a

reliable witness. There is no oral or documentary evidence supporting her

version and rather the evidence on record suggests false implication of the

accused in this case. Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the

respondent/accused of all the charges.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Babu Saheb Agouda

Rudragoudar (supra) held in paras 41 & 42 of its judgment as under:

"41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:

41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity: 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court."

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of

Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 has held in para 42 as under:-

"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the

jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-

"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

20. From bare perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, it is clear that

her testimony suffers from material inconsistencies and inherent

improbabilities. She alleged the incident occurred on 24.8.2012 but filed the

complaint only on 25.6.2015, after nearly three years, with no explanation for

delay. No police report or contemporaneous medical evidence was filed to

corroborate rape or injury. Her claim that accused entered by scaling a 10-

feet wall without support is contradicted by her own admission that it could

not be climbed without aid. Key independent witnesses PW-1, PW-2, and

PW-4 did not support the prosecution; PW-4 specifically stated that she

implicated the accused to grab land. PW-2 deposed that she had no injuries

when police brought her. Admittedly, there was long-standing property dispute

over six acres, with multiple civil/criminal cases between parties decided in

favour of the accused. The prosecutrix herself admitted that all cases filed by

her ended in acquittal of accused. DW-1 gave alternate explanation for

injuries--fall from motorcycle. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove guilt of

the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the overall

evidence on record and the aforecited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, learned trial Court rightly held the evidence unreliable and took a

plausible view, warranting no interference by this Court. The judgment relied

upon by learned counsel for the appellant being distinguishable on facts are

of no help to him.

21. In the result, the appeal being meritless is liable to be dismissed and is,

accordingly, dismissed.

                                 Sd/                                          Sd/
                            (Rajani Dubey)                            (Radhakishan Agrawal)
                                Judge                                       Judge

MOHD by   MOHD

AKHTAR Date:
       2026.04.17
KHAN   12:45:57
         +0530




 Khan