Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 08.09.2025 Order passed on : 23.09.2025 CRA No. 1121 of 2014

1 - Shankar Yadav S/o Raturam Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Ragra Saraipani, Ps Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ps Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Aaryan Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench)

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Judgment Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2014, passed in Special Case No. 09 of 2014, whereby learned Special Judge, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) convicted appellant for offences as under :

Conviction Sentence U/s 376(2)(k) of the I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and fine of Rs.

10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year U/s 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and fine of Rs.

10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year U/s 323 of the I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and fine of Rs.

1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months U/s 506(II) of the I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.

1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months Note : All the sentence run concurrently.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are, that the case of prosecution revolves around a complaint filed by the prosecutrix on 18.06.2013, alleging that the appellant committed rape against her on two separate occasions. The first incident reportedly occurred in January, 2013 when the prosecutrix was working at the house of appellant, engaged in plastering walls with soil. According to the prosecutrix, the appellant sent his wife away on an errand to the provision store, leaving her alone with him. He then allegedly caught hold of her and committed rape, threatening her that if she disclosed the matter to her husband or anyone else, he would kill her. Due to this threat, the prosecutrix did not immediately report the incident. The second incident took place on 16.08.2013, at about 5:00 am. The prosecutrix was collecting Mahua (a type of flower) under the Solgari Hill. The appellant allegedly reached the location at around 7:00 am and questioned her about why she had disclosed the previous incident to her husband. He then beat her with his hands and a stick (danda), causing her injuries. The appellant allegedly committed rape again, despite the resistance made by prosecutrix. As a result of this assault, she sustained injuries on her thigh, near the knee, cheek, and elbow of her left hand, and on her back. After the appellant ran away, the prosecutrix returned home and informed her husband about the incident. Her husband then accompanied her to the police station, where a report was lodged on 18.06.2013, at about 7:45 pm. The Police registered the case as Crime No. 98/2013 under the aforementioned offences.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case and have exhibited 17 documents, whereas, appellant has examined 01 witness in support of his defence. However, there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, and the case of prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of the prosecutrix and circumstantial evidence.

4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence and testimonies, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment. The appellant has challenged this conviction and sentence in the present appeal, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defense adopted by appellant