Dhelu Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 August, 2025

0
14

Chattisgarh High Court

Dhelu Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 August, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                   1




                                                      2025:CGHC:43613


                                                              AFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                  Judgment reserved on : 30-06-2025
                 Judgment delivered on : 28-08-2025

                         CRA No. 696 of 2006

Dhelu Ram, aged about 30 years, S/o Dhondu Ram Sahu, resident of
Village Khubatola, Thana Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG)


                                                      ... Appellant
                                versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon
(CG)
                                                         ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV Judgment

The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and

validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

28.6.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in ST
2

No.73/2005 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as

under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 450 of Indian Penal RI for seven years, pay a fine of
Code. Rs.100/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional SI for 10 days.

Under Section 376 of Indian Penal RI for seven years, pay a fine of
Code. Rs.100/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional SI for 10 days.

Under Section 506(1) of Indian RI for one month.

Penal Code.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that about five months prior

to 16.5.2005 when the prosecutrix, a minor girl, was all alone at her

house and was changing her clothes, the accused/appellant came to

her house and enquired about her father. She told him that her father is

not at the house but he forcibly entered the house and committed rape

on her on the threat of life. Three days thereafter he again came to her

house and committed rape on her as a result of which she got

pregnant. When she informed about her pregnancy to the accused, he

told her of getting it aborted and warned her of not disclosing it to

anyone. However, when mother of the prosecutrix returned to the

house from her parental house, looking to the condition of the

prosecutrix she took her to the doctor for treatment where the doctor
3

after examination told her about five months pregnancy of the

prosecutrix. Then the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her

mother who, in turn, informed the same to her husband and thereafter

a village meeting was convened. FIR (Ex.P/8) was lodged by the

prosecutrix with the police. The prosecutrix and the accused were got

medically examined; spot map was prepared, marksheet, Dakhil-Kharij

register and medical documents of the prosecutrix regarding treatment

of her pregnancy were seized and statements of the witnesses were

recorded. After completing investigation, charge sheet under Sections

376 and 506 of IPC was filed against the accused.

03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 450, 376 and

506(1) of IPC against the accused which were abjured by him and he

prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution

examined 14 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded

under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating

circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded

innocence and false implication. In his defence, he examined one

witness.

04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation

of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court

convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above.

Hence this appeal.

4

05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material

available on record. Except Dakhil-Kharij register of the school and

evidence of PW-10 father of the prosecutrix, there is no other evidence

to conclusively prove the age of the prosecutrix. There is no radiologist

report produced by the prosecution. In cross-examination, PW-10 has

failed to explain as to on what basis he stated the date of birth of his

daughter/prosecutrix as 5.3.1990. As per the evidence of PW-12

mother of the prosecutrix, it can safely be inferred that the prosecutrix

was more than 16 years on the date of incident.

06. He would next submit that looking to the evidence of the

prosecutrix, her conduct and the fact that there is inordinate delay of 4-

5 months from the date of incident in lodging the FIR, it is clear that

she was a consenting party to the act of the accused. The prosecution

did not examine independent witnesses Dhaneshwar and Dewangan

whose houses are adjacent to the house of the prosecutrix. The

prosecutrix states that the accused/appellant committed rape on her on

the point of knife but no such weapon was seized from his possession.

There are contradiction and omission in the statements of the

witnesses which makes their evidence doubtful. The prosecutrix kept

mum for more than five months and when the pregnancy was

confirmed by the doctor, the report was lodged against the appellant.

As per statements of Akru, Shivendra, Dalchand, Ladu Kartik and

Dhaneshwar who were allegedly present in the village meeting, the
5

appellant on number of occasions confessed his guilt and prayed for

forgiving him but their evidence has not been supported by other

prosecution witnesses who specifically stated that the appellant denied

the allegation.

07. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the learned

trial Court did not consider the evidence of defence witness Ramu

(DW-1) properly who states that the prosecutrix informed him that

when she went to the house of her brother-in-law (Jeeja), at around 9

pm she went out of the house to attend the call of nature and at that

time, some unknown person caught hold of her and committed rape on

her as a result of which she got pregnant. The prosecution failed to

produce DNA report in support of its case. He would further submit that

the prosecutrix has stated that on the date of incident, she took bath

due to her menstruation and while changing clothes, the appellant

entered the house and committed rape on her. PW-13 Dr. Seema Jain

has categorically stated that conception does not take place if

intercourse is performed during menstruation. As such, the medical

evidence does not support the prosecution case at all. Thus, the

prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond

all reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to

be set aside.

08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the

contention of the appellant would submit that in view of oral and
6

documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly

convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment

which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being

without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

10. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant

was charged under Sections 450, 376 and 506 Part-I of IPC and after

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court

convicted and sentenced him under these sections as mentioned in the

opening paragraph of this judgment.

11. The prosecutrix (PW-9) states that on the date of incident she

was all alone in the house as her mother and father had gone out. At

that time the accused/appellant came to her house and enquired about

her parents, to which she replied that they are not in the house.

Thereafter, the accused forcibly caught hold of her and committed rape

on her on the point of knife. After five months of the incident when her

mother came back from the village and noticed physical changes in

her, she took her to Dr. Narang who after examination found her

pregnant. Then she disclosed the incident to her parents and

consequently a village meeting was convened where she narrated the

whole incident and the appellant apologized for his act. She states that

after the village meeting, the FIR was lodged.

7

In cross-examination she admits that the appellant also used to

go with the villagers for labour work. She denied the suggestion that

she demanded money from the appellant for her abortion and on his

refusal, she falsely implicated him. She admits in para 10 of cross-

examination that had she not conceived, she would not have lodged a

report and then volunteers that if the accused had not done anything

with her, she would not have lodged report. She also admits that till

arrival of her mother, she did not disclose about her pregnancy to the

accused also.

12. From the statement of the prosecutrix it is clear that she was a

consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. She did not

disclose about the incident to anyone till her pregnancy was noticed by

her mother and confirmed by the doctor.

13. As regards age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution has filed copy

of admission-discharge register Ex.P/7C. PW-8 Goverdhanram

Kunjam, Head Master, states that the prosecutrix was studying in his

school and as per this register, her name is mentioned at S.No.532 and

her date of birth is recorded as 5.3.1990. She was admitted on

1.7.1996 in Class-I and left the school on 20.7.2001. In cross-

examination he admits that this entry is not made by him. He admits

that it is also not mentioned in the register as to on what basis the date

of birth of the student was recorded. He also admits that spelling of

name of the prosecutrix is different in this register.
8

14. PW-10 father of the prosecutrix states that date of birth of the

prosecutrix is 5.3.1990 and he brought photocopy of primary school

marksheet of the prosecutrix. He states that at the time of incident she

was about 14 ½ years. In cross-examination he admits that he had five

children, of which two daughters died at the age of 1 ½ years, the date

of birth of the prosecutrix is 5.3.1990 but he does not remember the

date of birth of his other children. PW-12 mother of the prosecutrix also

states that she does not remember the date of birth of the prosecutrix.

15. PW-13 Dr. Seema Jain examined the prosecutrix on 15.5.2005

and found that she was carrying pregnancy of 20 weeks and gave her

report Ex.P/13.

16. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the

prosecution filed photocopy of marksheet of the prosecutrix as Ex.P/9C

as also admission-discharge register as Ex.P/7C which records date of

birth of the prosecutrix as 5.3.1990. However, PW-8 Goverdhanram

Kunjam, Head Master of the school, admits that the entry regarding

date of birth of the prosecutrix was not made by him in the said register

and he also does not know as to on what basis this entry was made in

the register. PW-10 father of the prosecutrix brought photocopy of

marksheet of the prosecutrix and on that basis stated the date of her

birth whereas PW-12 mother of the prosecutrix states that she does not

remember the date of birth of the prosecutrix.

9

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Alamelu and another

Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, (2011) 2 SCC 385

observed in paras 40 & 48 of its judgment as under:

“40.Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ex.P16
indicates that the girl’s date of birth was 15th
June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the
aforesaid certificate, she would be above 16
years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on
the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July,
1993. The transfer certificate has been issued by
a Government School and has been duly signed
by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be
admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the
Indian Evidence Act. However, the admissibility
of such a document would be of not much
evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in
the absence of the material on the basis of which
the age was recorded.

48. We may further notice that even with
reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence
Act, a public document has to be tested by
applying the same standard in civil as well as
criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be
appropriate to notice the observations made by
this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi
Vs. State of U.P.4
held as follows:-

“The age of a person as recorded in the
school register or otherwise may be used for
various purposes, namely, for obtaining
10

admission; for obtaining an appointment; for
contesting election; registration of marriage;
obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling
laws; and even for the purpose of litigating
before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being
represented in a court of law by a guardian
or where a suit is filed on the ground that
the plaintiff being a minor he was not
appropriately represented therein or any
transaction made on his behalf was void as
he was a minor. A court of law for the
purpose of determining the age of a party to
the lis, having regard to the provisions of
Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to
apply the same standard. No different
standard can be applied in case of an
accused as in a case of abduction or rape,
or similar offence where the victim or the
prosecutrix although might have consented
with the accused, if on the basis of the
entries made in the register maintained by
the school, a judgment of conviction is
recorded, the accused would be deprived of
his constitutional right under Article 21 of the
Constitution, as in that case the accused
may unjustly be convicted.”

18. In light of above, in the present case it is clear that the

prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent and reliable evidence

that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of incident.
11

19. As per statement of PW-13 Dr. Seema Jain when she examined

the prosecutrix on 15.5.2005 she was found to be carrying 20 weeks

pregnancy. Father of the prosecutrix also states that she gave birth to a

male child on 14.9.2005 but no DNA test was conducted by the

prosecution to ascertain the paternity of the child. DW-1 Ramu states

that the prosecutrix told him that in Village-Chiddo someone raped her.

He states that in the village meeting, the accused/appellant told by

swearing on his son that he did not commit rape on the prosecutrix.

Looking to the statement of the prosecutrix it is evident that she did not

disclose about the incident for about five months to anyone and it is

only when her pregnancy was noticed by her mother and the same

was confirmed by the doctor that she disclosed about the act of the

accused/appellant. She also admitted that had she not conceived she

would not have reported the matter to the police. True it is that the sole

statement of a prosecutrix can be sufficient to hold a conviction in

cases of rape or sexual assault if the statement is found to be credible,

inspires confidence, and is free from significant contradictions or

inconsistencies. However, as discussed above, her evidence is not of

such quality as to inspire confidence and prove the guilt of the

appellant. Rather her conduct during the incident and subsequent

thereto suggests that she was a consenting party to the act of the

accused/appellant. Since it has already been held in the preceding

paragraph that the prosecution has failed to prove that she was minor
12

on the date of incident, no offence is made out against the

accused/appellant and he deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.

20. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment

of learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of

the charges under Sections 450, 376 and 506 Part-I of IPC.

The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view

the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 he is directed to furnish a

personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like

amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a

period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing

of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of

leave, he shall on receipt of notice thereon appear before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment

be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance

and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the

concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.


                                                                                            Sd/
         Digitally signed                                                      (Rajani Dubey)
MOHD by   MOHD
       AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
KHAN
       2025.08.28
       16:54:13
         +0530
                                                                                        Judge
Khan
 

[ad_1]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here