Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; victim's testimony must inspire confidence. Critical inconsistencies undermined the conviction for kidnapping and rape.

Order :

Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out same crime number and the same sessions trial, therefore, they are being heard and decided together.

2. The Criminal Appeal No. 1540/2016, filed by the appellant Rakesh Khunte against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 107/2011, whereby the appellant Rakesh Khunte has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

3. The Criminal Appeal No. 128/2017, has been filed by the appellants Anil Khanna and Mandanlal Dansena (as per the cause title it is written as Madanlal Dadsena) against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 107/2011, whereby the appellant Rakesh Khunte has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

4. In the Criminal Appeal No. 1495/2025, filed by the accused Ramadhar Baghel (accused in Sessions Trial No. 38/2021 decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa on 14.07.2025) it was pointed out that the daughter of the co-appellant of that case namely Rakesh Khunte who was allegedly to have been raped by the husband of the victim of the present case namely Madanlal Dansena, Rakesh Khunte, and Anil Khanna against whom the FIR of Crime No. 344/2011, was registered at Police Station Kharsiya and after trial they have been convicted by the learned trial Court on 28.11.2016 and sentenced RI for 10 years, both these present appeals are directed to be list along with the Criminal Appeal No. 1495/2025, CRA No. 534/2018 and CRA No.1508/2025. Therefore, the present appeals are listed along with the Criminal Appeals No. 1495/2025, CRA No.534/2018 and CRA No. 1508/2025 but have been decided by a separate set of judgments.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, PW-1, lodged a report on 10.04.2011 with the allegation that on 07.04.2011 at about 01:00 to 03:00 am, his daughter was missing from the house and despite her search in nearby places and the relative's house, she could not be found. During the search, it came into knowledge that the accused Rakesh is also missing from the same time, and the witnesses raised suspicion about him. On 14.04.2011, the victim was recovered from the house of the complainant, and then her statement was recorded. In her statement, she disclosed that the accused Rakesh Khunte and Anil Khanna kidnapped her, and Anil Khanna committed rape upon her. The offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376/34 of the IPC was registered. During the investigation, it was also discovered that the co-accused Rakesh Khunte and Mandanlal Dansena have also committed rape upon her. The victim was sent for her medical examination to the Community Health Centre, Kharsiya, and she was medically examined by Dr. J. Ekka PW-8, who gave her MLC report Ex.P/9. In her medical examination, no external injuries were found on the body of the victim. Statement of the witnesses has been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Spot map Ex.P/8 was prepared by the Police. With respect to the age of the victim, the school register Ex.P/16 was also seized from the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Botalda and a certificate from its principal Ex.P/15, was also seized. The vaginal slides of the victim and the underwear of the accused Rakesh Khunte were sent for their chemical examination to FSL, Raipur, and in the FSL report, semen and sperm were found present in both the articles. After completion of the usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against accused Rakesh Khunte showing the two accused persons Anil Khanna and Madanlal Dansena as absconding. The accused Madanlal Dansena was arrested on 17.01.2012 and Anil Kumar Khanna was arrested on 25.03.2012 and two separate supplementary charge-sheet were filed against these accused persons.

6. The learned trial Court has framed a