The conviction for rape was overturned due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in the victim's statements, emphasizing the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment on Board

(24.03.2025)

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-01- 2007, passed by learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Case No.270/2005, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted as under:-

2. As per prosecution story, the accused/appellant and the victim (PW-1) are residents of Village Basin, Police Station Pulgaon, Checkpost Jewarasirsa. On the date of the incident i.e. 28/09/05, at around 12 PM, the victim had left her house to call her uncle. When she passed by juvenile house, the juvenile and appellant Susheel met her, and both of them grabbed her, took her inside a room in juvenile’s house, and locked the door. There, the accused Sushil threatened the victim that if she made any noise, he would kill her. He then threw her onto the bed and committed sexual intercourse with her. After committing the crime, he locked the door from outside and left. At around 3–4 PM, when the victim saw the juvenile outside and called out to him. He then came and opened the door. She went home and later reported the incident at Pulgaon Police Station, Checkpost - Jewarsirsa, where a case was registered, and an investigation was initiated. During the investigation, based on the victim’s statement, the victim’s clothes were seized, and her medical examination was conducted. The accused was also arrested and subjected to a medical examination. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. Statements of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied circumstances appearing against him in prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. After hearing the parties, the trial court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case there is no clear evidence regarding the date of birth of the victim (PW-1). There is no mention in the FIR that the victim was being raped. There is serious contradiction in the statement of the victim. As far as the question of commission of the alleged offence by the appellant is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the sister of the appellant was married to the brother of the victim and after the death of the brother, due to the dispute between the two families, by Chunnu Lal Navarange (PW- 18) brother-in-law of appellant's sister Manju who is the cousin of the victim has lodged this false report against the appellant. Furthermore, the statement of the victim is not corroborated by medical evidence. Thus, the entire case of prosecution against the appellant is doubtful and hence his conviction is not based on valid evidence. Hence, the appellant may be acquitted of the charges leveled against him by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the conclusion given by the trial court regarding conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on sufficient and reliable evidence, which does not require any interference. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable, hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

8. It is an undisputed fact that both the parties are residents of the same village. The house of the juvenile is said to be at t