IMPORTANT POINT
The evidence of a prosecutrix must be credible and consistent for a conviction in rape cases; contradictions and lack of supporting evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Per Rajani Dubey, J

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-02-2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur in ST No.15/2019, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.10.2019 husband of the prosecutrix (PW-7) had gone to Ambikapur in connection with his work and while she along with her two minor children was asleep at her home, at around 10.30 pm she woke up hearing the sound of knock at the door. When she opened the door, she saw the appellant, who was resident of her maternal village-Podi, standing there and he forcibly entered her home and committed rape upon her. However, hearing the hue and cry raised by the prosecutrix, the villages came to her rescue and caught the appellant but it being too late, the appellant was not taken to police station at that time and after return of husband of the prosecutrix, she along with her husband and the villagers went to the police station with the appellant and lodged report to the above effect.

3. During the course of investigation, spot map Ex.P/10 was prepared, statement under Section 164 of CrPC of the prosecutrix was recorded, she was got medically examined, vaginal slides of the prosecutrix and undergarments of the appellant were seized; seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination; statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 376 and 450 of IPC was filed against the accused/appellant followed by framing of charges accordingly by the learned trial Court which were abjured by the appellant and he prayed for trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence.

5. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant would submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that the prosecutrix and the appellant were well acquainted to each other as they belong to the same village and she has admitted in her deposition that there were friendly relations between them. In fact, on the date of incident she herself had called the appellant to her home and had physical relation with him of her own free will but as she was caught red handed by the villagers, a false report was lodged against the appellant. She also admits that she did not receive any external or internal injury during the alleged offence. Medical evidence lends no support to the prosecution case. Even otherwise, looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix during the alleged offence as is reflected from her deposition, it is clear that she was a consenting party to the act of the appellant. The other important prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mat