IMPORTANT POINT
The sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible and reliable, can lead to conviction without corroboration, and legal presumptions regarding lack of consent in rape cases play a crucial role in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Arvind Kumar Verma, J

Heard.

1. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C are against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14/11/2022 passed in Sessions Trial No. 70/2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 376(D) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (till his life) with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of 04 months each.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16/09/2019 the prosecutrix, aged about 24 years lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P/6) alleging therein that prior to 15-20 days, someone was constantly calling her over mobile from mobile no. 9131051174 telling his name as Manmohan Banjare and he was forcing her to meet. On 15/09/2019, the said person, after making call twice or thrice, asked the prosecutrix to meet near Bilha turning, Hirri, on which, at about 04:00 pm, she went to Bilha turning, where appellant- Manmohan along with his five friends came in a Bolero vehicle. Subsequently, Manmohan Banjare forcibly dragged her into the Bolero vehicle and after forcibly tightening her eyes by a piece of clothe, took her to Chhuikhadan, Shrangarpur. Subsequently, other co-accused persons i.e. Pundas and Bau, forcibly caught hold her hand and mouth and appellant- Manmohan committed rape with her. It has been alleged that while the said act was being done with her, she was screaming and listening to her screams, one pedestrian who was passing nearby, stopped there. Thereafter, the appellants fled away from the spot. Subsequently, the report was made by her.

3. During investigation, the statements of the prosecutrix as well as the witnesses were recorded. The medical examination of the prosecutrix and appellant- Manmohan was conducted at Community Health Center, Hirri, Bilaspur. The doctor prepared vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix and preserved the same in a sealed packet. The said articles were sent for its chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur.

4. Based on the report made by the prosecutrix, crime no. 144/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 374 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against the appellants. After investigating the matter, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Subsequently, the trial Court framed the charges. The appellants abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14/11/2022 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7. Mr. A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. He submits that due to criminal conspiracy, the appellants are being implicated in a false case. The prosecutrix herself made calls to the appellant on his mobile phone and she herself went to meet the appellant, which shows that she was the consenting party. He further submits that the statement of Dr. Nikita Kanwar (PW11) shows that there was no injury over the body of prosecutrix including the private part. He submits that the prosecution has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants, therefore, he prays for acquittal of the appellants by setting-aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court

8. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State would oppose the submission and submitted that the conviction of the appellants