[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mohan Das @ Mohan vs State Of C.G on 17 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
The date when The date when The date when the
the judgment the judgment is judgment is uploaded on
is reserved pronounced the website
Operative Full
30.01.2026 17.03.2026 -- 17.03.2026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 703 of 2012
Judgment reserved on: 30.01.2026
Judgment delivered on: 17.03.2026
1 - Mohan Das @ Mohan Das Satnami, S/o Chaindas Satnami Aged
About 30 Years R/o Village - Paraswani, P.S. - Pallari, Distt. - Raipur
C.G.
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through:- Station House Officer, P.S. - Pallari,
District- Raipur Now Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Judgment
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.2012 passed by the
learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District
Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 202/2011. By the said
judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of seven years along with a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment
of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix had been
residing since childhood with her maternal grandfather in Village
Parswani. The prosecutrix is a mentally challenged person, suffers
from speech impairment and her mode of communication is
understood only by her family members. On 07.09.2011 at about
11:00 a.m., the prosecutrix had gone alone towards a drain (nala)
to answer the nature's call. While she was returning, the accused
Mohan allegedly noticed her alone and forcibly took her towards
the roadside, near the boundary of an agricultural field. It is
alleged that the accused compelled her to lie on the ground and
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will and
without her consent. When the prosecutrix raised alarm, the
accused slapped her. Thereafter, one Kanak Bai found the
prosecutrix crying on the road in front of the field and took her to
her house. Upon being questioned, the prosecutrix narrated the
incident to the family members. Subsequently, Anita and Kunti Bai
examined the private parts of the prosecutrix and allegedly
noticed wetness. Mud was also found on her clothes. Grandfather
of the prosecutrix lodged a report regarding the incident at Police
Station Palari. The police registered the case and sent the
prosecutrix for medical examination. Her clothes were seized and
examined by the doctor and a vaginal/genital smear slide was
prepared and seized. The underwear of the accused was also
seized. The accused was medically examined and his
undergarments were also examined. The investigating agency
prepared the spot map and a separate map was also prepared by
the Patwari. Statements of witnesses were recorded under the
provisions of law. The accused was arrested and the seized
articles were sent for chemical examination/forensic analysis.
After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Balodabazar. The case, being triable by the Court of Session, was
committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Learned trial Court
framed the charges under Sections 376, 323 of IPC against the
appellant, to which the appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for
trial.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution
examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the
accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false
implication in the case. However, in his defence, no evidence was
adduced by him.
4. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 06.08.2012
finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy,
convicted the the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in
para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that the
impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary
to law as well as to the evidence available on record and,
therefore, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that
the appellant is a poor villager and works as a sound-system
mechanic. He has remained in judicial custody since the date of
his arrest i.e. 07.05.2011 and continues to be incarcerated. The
learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of
the prosecutrix (PW-2). In her deposition before the Court, she did
not support the prosecution case and did not state that she had
been subjected to rape. The First Information Report was lodged
by her grandfather (PW-1), who himself turned hostile during trial.
Similarly, prosecution witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 also turned
hostile. PW-6 Kanak Bai, who allegedly brought the prosecutrix
home, also did not support the prosecution story. Further, the
father of the prosecutrix (PW-7) also turned hostile and did not
corroborate the prosecution case, yet the learned Trial Court
ignored this material contradiction and failed to properly evaluate
the evidence on record. Likewise, Anand Kumar (PW-8), the
maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, also turned hostile and did not
support the allegations against the appellant.
The learned Trial Court further erred in not properly
appreciating the testimony of Dr. Snehlata Singh (PW-10), who
medically examined the prosecutrix and categorically stated that
no external or internal injuries were found. The medical report of
the prosecutrix also records that there were no signs of injury.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to produce the FSL report or any
chemical examination report along with the charge-sheet so as to
connect the appellant with the alleged offence. In absence of any
scientific or forensic evidence, the alleged prosecution case
remains uncorroborated. The learned Trial Court also failed to
appreciate the medical examination of the appellant and the
deposition of the doctor who conducted his MLC. The doctor
clearly stated that no abrasions or injuries were found on the
back, arms or any other part of the appellant's body, which is
inconsistent with the prosecution allegations of a forcible act. In
view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction
recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on misappreciation of
evidence, ignoring material contradictions and absence of medical
and forensic corroboration, and therefore deserves to be set
aside.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the
impugned judgment submits that the impugned judgment and
order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court are legal,
proper and based on correct appreciation of the evidence on
record, and thus call for no interference. Non-production of FSL
report is also not fatal when the oral and circumstantial evidence
sufficiently establish the offence. The learned Trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded a well-reasoned
conviction. The appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be
dismissed and the conviction and sentence are liable to be
affirmed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
8. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned
trial Court framed charges under Sections 376 and 323 of IPC and
after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the
appellant of the charge under Section 323 of IPC and convicted
him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
9. It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix is a mentally retarded girl.
The learned trial Court, in order to assess her ability to depose,
put certain questions to the prosecutrix (P.W.-2). Upon such
examination, the trial Court recorded that the witness is mentally
retarded, does not properly understand things and is unable to
speak clearly. The maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix was
also present in the Court; however, he stated that he was unable
to understand the gestures made by the prosecutrix and,
therefore, could not explain what she intended to convey. As a
result, the witness did not provide any information with regard to
the alleged incident.
10. The grandfather of the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) stated that the
prosecutrix had not disclosed anything to him regarding the
alleged incident. He further deposed that the prosecutrix had been
unable to speak or understand things properly since her childhood
and that she was a mentally retarded girl from birth. He also
stated that he had not lodged the report against the appellant.
However, he admitted his signature from A to A part of First
Information Report (Ex.P/1). He, however, denied the contents
written in the said FIR. Thereafter, the prosecution declared him
hostile and cross-examined him but he denied the suggestions put
to him regarding the allegations made by the prosecutrix.
11. Maternal aunts of the prosecutrix, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, stated that
the prosecutrix had returned from the field with her clothes
stained. They further stated that the prosecutrix was crying and
was calling out the name of Mohan. They also stated that the
prosecutrix had not disclosed anything regarding the incident and
that she was a dumb person. The prosecution declared them
hostile and cross-examined them, during which they admitted the
suggestion of the prosecution that the prosecutrix had stated that
Mohan Satnami had committed rape with her. They further
admitted the suggestions put by the defence that the prosecutrix
had been deaf and dumb since childhood and was also mentally
retarded. They also admitted that they could not directly
understand what the prosecutrix had stated to them. P.W.-4
further stated that she had informed the police that the prosecutrix
was crying and taking the name of Mohan and if the said fact was
not mentioned in Ex.D/1, she did not know the reason for the
same. P.W.-5 further stated that she had informed the police that
there was swelling in the private part of the prosecutrix and if the
said fact was not mentioned in Ex.D/2, she did not know the
reason for the same.
12. The aunt of the prosecutrix (P.W.-6), the father of the prosecutrix
(P.W.-7) and the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix (P.W.-8) stated
that the prosecutrix did not speak properly. The father of the
prosecutrix (P.W.-7) and the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix
(P.W.-8) were declared hostile by the prosecution and were cross-
examined, however, they denied all the suggestions put to them
by the prosecution.
13. Manoj Kumar (P.W.-9) deposed that the father of the prosecutrix
had informed him that the accused Mohandas was attempting to
flee, whereupon they apprehended him. He further stated that the
report was lodged by the grandfather of the prosecutrix.
In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he had
informed the police in his statement (Ex.D/3) that the accused was
running away and was subsequently caught by them. He further
stated that if the said fact was not recorded in the police
statement, he was unaware of the reason for the same.
14. Dr. Snehlata Singh (P.W.-10) stated that she had medically
examined the prosecutrix and did not find any signs indicative of
recent forceful sexual intercourse. She further stated that she had
prepared the relevant slides and referred them for FSL
examination and had submitted her report vide Ex.P/17.
In her cross-examination, she admitted the suggestion that
no symptoms indicative of recent sexual intercourse were found
during the medical examination of the prosecutrix.
15. Upon close scrutiny of the statements of all the prosecution
witnesses, it is apparent that the prosecutrix is deaf and dumb and
the learned trial Court was unable to record her statement. During
the course of examination, when the learned trial Court put a
query to Dr. Snehlata Singh (P.W.-10) regarding how many days
prior to the medical examination the alleged sexual intercourse
had taken place, the doctor stated that she was unable to specify
the exact time when such intercourse might have occurred, but
she categorically stated that no sexual intercourse had taken
place within 24 hours prior to the examination.
16. It is also noteworthy that no FSL report was produced by the
prosecution before the learned trial Court. The grandfather of the
prosecutrix (P.W.-1) denied the contents of the police report. The
note of the learned trial Court further indicates that the prosecutrix
was unable to speak properly and was also unable to understand
the gestures made to her. However, the learned trial Court failed
to properly appreciate these material facts and erroneously
recorded a finding that Dr. Snehlata Singh had reported that
sexual intercourse had been committed with the prosecutrix and
relied upon the statements of Kanak Bai, Kunti Bai and Anita.
17. A careful reading of the testimony of Dr. Snehlata Singh (P.W.-10)
along with her medical report (Ex.P/17) clearly indicates that no
sexual intercourse had taken place within 24 hours prior to the
examination. Furthermore, no witness has stated that he or she
had seen the accused and the prosecutrix together at the relevant
time. Although Manoj Kumar (P.W.-9) stated that the father of the
prosecutrix had apprehended the appellant when he was allegedly
running away, this fact does not find place in his police statement
(Ex.D/3), thereby constituting a material omission. Moreover, the
statements of the father, the grandfather and the prosecutrix do
not support the prosecution case. The medical evidence also does
not corroborate the allegations made by the prosecution. In the
absence of any legally admissible, cogent and clinching evidence,
the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon consideration of the
facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature and
quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the conviction
of the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are hereby set
aside. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed and the appellant
is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
19. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, the appellant is
reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section
437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to
forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45
prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 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
along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special
Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave,
the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
20. 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
Ruchi
RUCHI Digitally signed
YADAV by RUCHI YADAV
