Chattisgarh High Court
Mohanlal And Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 July, 2026
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
CGHC010001962005 2026:CGHC:30415
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 358 of 2005
Reserved on 17/06/2026
Delivered on 17/ 07/2026
1. Mohan Lal S/o. Shri Puran Lal Sahu, Aged about 23 Years, R/o.
Hathnipara, Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG)
2. Kamlesh S/o. Nama @ Nirmal Kumar Sahu, Aged about 21 years,
Resident of Hathnipara, Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Bhatapara Police Station, Bhatapara,
District Raipur (CG)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Rohishek Verma and Mr.
Ishaan Singh Rahore, Advocates
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. AG with
Ms. Prachi Singh, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.03.2005 passed by
the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) in
Sessions Trial No. 241 of 2004, whereby the appellants have been
convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-
Digitally
signed by
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.07.17
16:50:21
+0530
2Conviction Sentence
450/34 IPC RI for 7-7 years and fine of Rs.
1000/- each in default of payment of
fine to further undergo additional RI
for one year.
506 B/34 IPC RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-
each in default of payment of fine to
further undergo additional RI for
one year.
376(g)/34 IPC RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-
each in default of payment of fine to
further undergo additional RI for
one year.
2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, the victim lodged FIR (Ex.P-13) on
09.06.2004 under Sections 450,506 and 376 IPC bearing Crime No. 118
of 2004 before Police Station Bhatapara alleging that she was alone in
the house as her husband had gone to out of village for earning livelihood
as labour. On 07.06.2004 in the night when she was sleeping along with
her three minor children aged about 8, 6 and 4 years respectively on the
roof of her house, at that time the appellants with common intention
climbed the roof from back side of the house and caught hold the victim
while she was sleeping. Suddenly, she woke up then the appellants
caught hold her hands and when she tried to scream then the appellants
threatened her to kill and told that if she would raise alarm, they will kill
her and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one. The
Investigating Officer sent the victim for medical examination and
thereafter in furtherance to this investigation, the Investigating Officer
3
seized the necessary articles, prepared the spot map. She was medically
examined by Dr. S. Dhagamvar (PW-7). Her report is Ex.P-10 in which
she did not find any bodily injury. The seized articles were sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and report was
received on 23.10.2004.
3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Sections 161 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet
was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda
Bazar, who in turn committed the case to the Court of 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge Baloda Bazar which was registered as Sessions Case
No. 241 2004. The learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections
450, 506-B and 376(g) of the IPC.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants has
examined as many as 11 witnesses, Chhabiram Sahu (PW-1),Dhannu
(PW-2), Babulal (PW-3), Dr. R.K. Awasthi (PW-4), Ganga Meshram (PW-
5), Smt. Shailkumari (PW-6), Dr. S. Dhagamwar (PW-7), Shankar Lal
Verma (PW-8), victim (PW-9), Sub inspector R.K. Mishra (PW-10) and
Hemant Singh (PW-11). Statements of the accused/appellants were
recorded under Section 313 CRPC in which they denied the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded
innocence and false implication. The appellants in their support examined
Sitabai (DW-1), Rambharos (DW-2), Deepak Sahu (DW-3) and Nirmal
Kumar Sahu (DW-4).
4
5. After hearing the parties, learned 2 th Additional Sessions Judge on the
basis of material on record and upon considering the statements of the
witnesses passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
against the appellants as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants preferred
this Criminal Appeal. During the trial, the appellant Mohan Lal remained
in jail from 10.04.2004 to 14.02.2005 and Appellant Kamlesh remained in
jail from 10.04.2004 to 22.10.2004. This Court vide order dated
25.07.2005 released the appellants on bail.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial court
did not appreciate the evidence properly and erroneously convicted the
appellant on the basis of unreliable testimony of the victim without any
medical corroboration. He would further submit that the trial court failed to
consider that the victim was a major and married lady, and her conduct
revealed that she was a consenting party, the evidence of the victim
(P.W-9) was not at all reliable for want of corroboration from the medical
evidence. According to learned Senior counsel for the appellant, the
victim alleged use of force and sexual violence, but Dr. D. Dhagamwar
(P.W-7), who medically examined the victim, did not find any external or
internal injury over her body. It was further submitted that the absence of
injuries on her body revealed that the victim was a consenting party and
the description of the incident as narrated by her in para-1 of her
deposition regarding undressing her etc. could not have been possible
without her consent.
5
7. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant submits that though the victim
made allegations of rape against the appellants, yet she did not try to
escape, nor she shouted for help, though her children were sleeping
along with her and there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR which
renders the entire prosecution story doubtful. He would further submit
that as per FIR itself the case of the prosecution is that the victim was
sleeping with the children but non-examination of this vital witnesses who
were also present at the place of occurrence weaken the case of the
prosecution, as such the accused are entitled to get benefit of doubt as
the prosecution is unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
against the appellants.
8. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses is not consistent and trustworthy to sustain
conviction. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court are
perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law. On these grounds,
learned Sr. counsel for the appellants would pray for setting aside the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the
appellants be acquitted of the charges by extending the benefit of doubt.
To substantiate this submission, he referred to the judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu vs. State
(NCT of Delhi reported in 2012 SCC Online SC 590, Santosh Prasad
alias Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported 2020 SCC Online
SC 194, Davinder Sing vs. State of Punjab reported in 2023 (19) SCC
229 and Nirmal Premkumar and another vs. State Represented by
Inspector of Police reported in 2024 (20) SCC 293.
6
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposing the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned trial Court is legal, justified and based on proper appreciation of
the evidence available on record. Learned State counsel would further
submit that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt, particularly on the basis of the cogent and reliable
testimony of the victim (PW-9). It is contended that the statement of the
victim is natural, consistent and trustworthy, and there is no reason to
disbelieve her version. It is further argued that in cases of sexual assault,
conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the victim if it inspires
confidence. Learned counsel would also submit that the testimony of the
victim stands corroborated by other prosecution witnesses including the
FIR.
10. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the delay has
been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution as the victim had first
narrated the incident, thereafter the matter was discussed in a village
meeting (panchayat). Only upon the advice of the villagers, the report
was lodged before the police. Therefore, the delay is natural and does
not affect the credibility of the prosecution case, even otherwise in an
Indian society normally the victim of sexual offence hesitates in lodging
the FIR as such delay is not so fatal for the prosecution case and does
not make out prosecution case untrustworthy and would pray for
dismissal of the appeal.
7
11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and perused
the record of the trial Court with utmost satisfaction.
12. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
point emerged for determination by this Court is;-
“Whether conviction can be recorded on the sole evidence of
the victim and whether evidence of the victim inspires
confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy,
unblemished and is of sterling quality or not?.
13. Victim (PW-9) in her examination-in-chief has reiterated the facts
mentioned in the FIR but in the cross examination she has admitted in
para-9 that she knew Mohan and Kamlesh for last 10 years since when
she was living at the present place. She has admitted that the staircase is
within the house and also admitted that she used to sleep in the house
after closing the gate. She also admitted that in para-13 that at the time
of incident she was sleeping with the children and also admitted that if
she would have made hue and cry then the neighbours would have heard
the noise and voluntarily stated that the accused have pressed her
mouth, therefore, she could not make noise. She also stated that when
the police came to her house for enquiry then she has not informed them
that as to how the accused climbed the roof and the police have seen the
staircase. She also stated that she has informed about hue and cry in her
evidence before the Police but if it has not been written no explanation
can be given. Also admitted that fact regarding kicking to the accused has
been informed to police but the same has not been written in police
station then she cannot explain it. In para-16 the victim denied that she
has opened the gate for Pawan but after hearing the noise near by the
8
resident, Pawan left away and voluntarily stated that Pawan has come on
previous night when she raised voice, he left away.
14. Dhannu (PW-2) deposed that the victim informed him that Mohan,
Kamlesh and Pawan entered in her house and nothing else informed him.
In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that after two three days
of the incident the victim informed him that some people had jumped into
her house but she did not name anyone.
15. Babulal (PW-3) deposed that the victim came to his house and informed
that two boys committed rape on her. In the cross-examination, he
deposed that after how many days of the incident her daughter-in-law
came and informed him about the incident is not recollected today.
16. Smt. Shail Kumari (PW-6) deposed that the victim after returning from
Police Station informed her that she made report against Kamlesh and
Mohan and nothing else informed her. This witnesses turned hostile
thereafter the prosecution cross-examined her wherein she admitted that
the victim has not informed her that the accused has entered the house
and committed rape upon her. But has simply informed that two persons
entered into her house. In para-7 she has also admitted a person named
Pawan entered into the house of the victim against which she has lodged
the report and the matter is still pending. She also admitted that the
appellants are neighbours of the victim.
17. Dr. S. Dhagamvar (PW-7) medically examined the victim (PW-9) wherein
she did not find any injury on the private part of her body and stated that
hymen of the victim was torn and she did not notice swelling on her
private part and two fingers were easily entered into her vagina. She was
9
habitual of sexual intercourse; therefore, no definite opinion regarding
recent sexual intercourse can be given. The seized articles were handed
over to constable for chemical examination and she herself prepared
report Ex.P-10. She has further stated that according to her report, no
opinion regarding commission of rape upon the victim can be given.
18. Shankar Lal Verma (PW-8) Patwari deposed in the cross-examination,
that total height of the roof of the victim’s house is eleven and half feet
and there is no staircase to the victim’s terrace. He further deposed that
front wall and surrounding wall of victim’s house is completely flat and
also admitted that the house of Kamal was adjacent to the victim’s
house.
19. The accused examined DW-2 Rambharos who has stated that complaint
regarding illicit relationship of Kanhaiya was lodged and a meeting in this
regard was conducted in the villager wherein the victim accepted her
guilt.
20. From the appreciation of evidence, it is quite vivid, that the victim is a
major lady and mother of three children and from the evidence it is also
quite vivid that the victim has not shouted at the time when the alleged
offence was committed otherwise, the victim’s children who are sleeping
along with the victim would have woken up and tried to save her mother.
The victim has also admitted that there was no staircase from the outside
to climb the roof where the victim was sleeping and the staircase was
within the house of the victim and there was gate which remained closed
as per evidence of the victim. Thus there was no way to climbed up
staircase as per evidence of Shankar Lal Verma (PW-8) who has
10
categorically admitted that there is staircase to climb up in the roof and
the entire wall of the house which was 11 and half feet flat wall. Thus
there is no other way to climb the roof, except the staircase which is
within the house and unless door is opened there is no way to climbed up
staircase for reaching to the roof and to commit the offence.
21. Further considering the fact that the prosecution has not placed any
evidence on record that the accused have broken the door and thereafter
committed the offence and they reached to roof. In absence of any such
evidence on record a doubt is created regarding commission of rape
upon the victim. Further from the evidence of the victim it is quite vivid
that the victim has not informed the incident to her husband immediately.
22. Further from the evidence of the victim, during course of alleged sexual
assault, she had neither scratched the appellants with her nails nor made
any attempt to rescue herself from the hands of the appellants, though
she has stated that she has kicked the accused when the offence was yet
to commence but at the time of alleged offence she had not scratched
any of the accused to cause injury or sign upon the accused to raise
alarm or objection. Even there was no injury on the body of the victim
found as evident from the evidence of Dr. S. Dhagamwar (PW-7) who has
medically examined the victim (PW-9), stated that there was no injury
mark on any part of the victim body, including her private parts. The
hymen was old torn and has given her opinion that “No definite opinion
could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse with her”, as such, the
allegation of commission of gang-rape is not supported by medical
evidence. Even the FSL report has also found negative.
11
23. Further the statement of the victim does not confer confidence as she has
admitted that another person namely Pawan has also visited her house
on previous night and ran away after raising her voice. Even the victim
has admitted in the evidence that the children have not wake up, if the
victim would have make hue and cry while offence was committed upon
her then there is no possibility that the children who are sleeping may not
awake up and not raise alarm to object the commission of offence.
24. From the appreciation of the evidence, it is quite vivid that the victim aged
about 40 years having three children and also her testimony before the
trial Court wherein it has been reveled that no alarm or resistance was
made by her while the appellant were performing the act, therefore, no
other conclusion can be drawn except that the victim is a consenting
party. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kaini Rajan vs. State of
Kerala {(2013) 9 SCC 113} has held as under :-
“12. Section 375 IPC defines the expression “rape”, which
indicates that the first clause operates, where the woman is in
possession of her senses, and therefore, capable of consenting
but the act is done against her will; and second, where it is done
without her consent; the third, fourth and fifth, when there is
consent, but it is not such a consent as excuses the offender,
because it is obtained by putting her on any person in whom she
is interested in fear of death or of hurt. The expression “against
her will” means that the act must have been done in spite of the
opposition of the woman. An inference as to consent can be
drawn if only based on evidence or probabilities of the case.
“Consent” is also stated to be an act of reason coupled with
deliberation. It denotes an active will in the mind of a person to
permit the doing of an act complained of. Section 90 IPC refers
to the expression “consent”. Section 90, though, does not define
“consent”, but describes what is not consent. “Consent”, for the
purpose of Section 375, requires voluntary participation not only
after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the
significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully
exercised the choice between resistance and assent. Whether
12there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on a careful
study of all relevant circumstances”.
25. It is well settled position of law that if the sole testimony of the victim is
found reliable and trustworthy it requires no corroboration and may be
sufficient to invite conviction of the accused provided the same must
inspire confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished
and of sterling quality, as such the submission of Sr. counsel for the
appellants that non-examination of children by the prosecution is fatal is
misconceived and deserves to be rejected. But the sole evidence of the
victim should be sterling quality and must confer confidence on the case
of the prosecution then only conviction in a sexual offence can be
passed. It is also settled position of law that while considering the
evidence of the victim subjected to sexual offence the Court does not
require an almost accurate repetition of facts with regard to the incident
but the Court has to consider the version of the victim events to extent
reasonably possible for her to recollect the events and if the Court deems
fit such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly instance on
corroboration of that version requires. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Nirmal Premkumar and Anr. vs. State Represented by
Inspector of Police reproted in 2024 INSC 193 has examined the issue
and has held as under:-
12. In Ganesan v. State 2020 (10) SCC 573, this Court held
that the sole testimony of the victim, if found reliable and
trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to
invite conviction of the accused.
14. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana(2011) 7 SCC
130, this Court laid down that although the victim’s solitary
evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally
deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction
cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix’s testimony is found
13unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae.
It was held thus:
“31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for
commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence
of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same
inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely
trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling
quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the
prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have
already been projected hereinabove, would go to show
that her evidence does not fall in that category and
cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the
said offences.
32. Indeed there are several significant variations in
material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161
statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it
was necessary to get her evidence corroborated
independently, which they could have done either by
examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were
present in the house at the time of her alleged
abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though
cited as a witness was not examined and later given up
by the public prosecutor on the ground that she has
been won over by the appellant.” (2011) 7 SCC 130.
26. Guided by the law as aforesaid and, in my pursuit, to answer the issue
framed by this Court, I record having examined the evidence threadbare
and noticed manifest contradictions and discrepancies in the oral
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. To my mind, these have the effect
of casting a serious doubt with regard to the veracity of the prosecution
version. They are summarized hereunder:
(I) that in absence of any staircase for climbing up on the roof of
house, as to how the appellants would reach the roof for
commission of offence unless the door which is within the house is
opened for allowing them to reach to the rooftop for commission of
offence is not possible without any help and who has helped them
out to open has not been proved by the prosecution. Even the
victim has admitted that without opening of the door it is not
possible to climb up on the staircase.
14
(ii) She has admitted in the evidence that she knew the appellants
for more than 10 years. Also admitted that another person namely
Pawan has visited her house previous night but he ran away when
she raised her voice.
(iii) Neither scratched on the appellants with her nails nor made
any attempt to rescue herself from the hands of the appellants has
been made out by the victim.
(iv) No any incriminating articles were seized by the Police from
the place of occurrence to suggest that the victim was subjected to
forceful sexual intercourse.
(v) Even the treating doctor (PW-9) found no injury on any part of
the body of the victim to suggest that she has resisted and still the
offence has been committed by the accused coupled with the fact
that FSL found negative which does not support the prosecution
case.
27. The aforesaid discrepancies shown from the evidence of the victim is not
of sterling quality, which is sufficient for conviction of the appellants. The
trial Court has held the appellants guilty without taking into consideration
the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter.
28. In view of the above and considering the evidence, material and law as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nirmal Premkumar
(Supra), this Court finds that solitary version of the victim, (PW-9) does
not confer confidece on the prosecution case and is not of sterling quality
and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no
justification for this Court to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellants under Section 376(g) of the IPC, therefore, the
accused/appellants are acquitted by given benefit of doubt.
15
29. So far as conviction under Section 506-B/34 IPC is concerned, the
prosecution is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
have threatened the victim with any injury, to the person or property or
reputation of anyone whom that person is interested or the threat must be
intentionally to cause harm to the person. From the evidence it is quite
vivid, that no injury has been caused to the body of the victim to suggest
that the said alleged offence has been committed by the accused on
threatening or causing harm to the victim. It is well settled legal position
of law that merely utterances of words are not sufficient for successful
conviction under Section 506-B of the IPC as held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case Parminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab reported in 2020
(8) SCC 811. Again in case of Sharif Ahmed vs. State of U.P. reported
in 2024 (14) SCC 122, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under;-
“49. This Court in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka
and Another26, had referred to Section 506 which prescribes
punishment for the offence of ‘criminal intimidation’ as defined in
Section 503 of the IPC, to observe that the offence under Section
503 requires that there must be an act of threating another
person with causing an injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested. This threat must be with the intent to cause
alarm to the person threatened or to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or omit to do an act which he is entitled to do.
Mere expression of any words without any intent to cause alarm
would not be sufficient to bring home an offence under Section
506 of the IPC. The material and evidence must be placed on
record to show that the threat was made with an intent to cause
alarm to the complainant, or to cause them to do, or omit to do an
act. Considering the statutory mandate, offence under Section
506 is not shown even if we accept the allegation as correct.
50. In view of the aforesaid position, we quash the chargesheet
and the summoning order. The appellants are discharged. We
clarify that the observations made above will have no bearing on
the civil proceedings, if any, already initiated or which may be
initiated in future by the respondent/complainant.”
16
30. Thus, it is quite vivid that the prosecution is unable to prove that the
appellants have committed the offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC,
therefore, their conviction under Section 506(2) of IPC is liable to be set
aside by this Court and accordingly it is set aside by grating benefit of
doubt.
31. Since the prosecution is unable to prove that the accused/appellants
have committed offence under Section 376(g) of the IPC beyond
reasonable doubt therefore, they are also liable to be acquitted of the
charge under Section 450/34 of the IPC by granting benefit of doubt as
Section 450 of the IPC provide that whoever commit house trespass in
order to committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment (life)
shall be punished with imprisonment either description for a term not
exceeding 10 years. Accordingly the accused are also acquitted from the
offence under Section 450/34 of the IPC.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, the
appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 125/2004
convicting the appellant under Sections 450/34, 506-B/34 and 376(g)/34
of the IPC are hereby set aside by extending the benefit of doubt.
33. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged in
view of the provisions of Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
santosh
