Chattisgarh High Court
Saurabh Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2025
1
CRA No. 227/2016
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
2025:CGHC:38039
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.05
17:20:34
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 227 of 2016
1 - Saurabh Chandrakar S/o Shri Bhikham Chandrakar Aged About
34 Years R/o Village Fagundah, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur,
District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Respondent/State
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Judgment on Board
01/08/2025
1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the
2
CRA No. 227/2016
Cr.P.C 1973 is against impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 30.01.2016 passed in Sessions Case
No. 27/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)., whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 376 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10
years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-
with default stipulation.
U/S 506 Part-II of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 01
year with default stipulation.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The essential facts for adjudication of this appeal are as
follows:
The prosecutrix, aged about 20 years and a B.Sc. III-
year student at P.G. College, Dhamtari, was on her way to
buy books on 26.12.2014 around 12:00 PM when the
appellant, Saurabh Chandrakar, approached her outside
the college on his motorcycle and offered to drop her at
the bookshop. Initially hesitant, she agreed as he
3
CRA No. 227/2016belonged to the same village. After purchasing the book,
the appellant claimed he was hungry and took her to a
friend’s house for breakfast. There, the prosecutrix
allegedly lost consciousness and, upon regaining it an
hour later, found herself naked and in pain. The
appellant then dropped her at college, from where she
went home. The prosecution further alleges that the
appellant repeatedly coerced her into a physical
relationship, threatening her life, and that they had
sexual intercourse twice at Chhabda Lodge under
pressure. The prosecutrix claims she consented out of
fear, as the appellant had recorded their first encounter
and threatened to circulate the video. Although he later
handed over the video chip upon her demand, she
learned from villagers that the video was shared on
WhatsApp. She informed her parents and lodged a
complaint, upon which Dhamtari police registered an FIR
under Sections 376, 506 Part II, and 417 of the IPC and
Section 67 of the IT Act.
Subsequently, statement of the Victim and the
4
CRA No. 227/2016statements of witnesses were recorded. After completing
the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before
the Court. After framing the charges against the
accused/appellant, the charges were read out and
explained to the appellant, he denied committing the
crime and demanded trial.
In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution
has examined 09 witnesses in its support. Statement of
the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was
recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and
false implication in the matter.
So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the
prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses.
Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the the
circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution
case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No
defence witness was examined by the accused/appellant.
The trial Court after hearing counsel for the
respective parties and considering the material available
5
CRA No. 227/2016on record has acquitted the accused/appellant from the
offence under Section 67 of I.T. Act and convicted him
under Section 376 and 506 Part II of the IPC as
mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would
submit that in the present case there is an inordinate and
unexplained delay in lodging the FIR which gave an
opportunity to the police to falsely implicate the accused.
Learned counsel further submit that the learned trial Court
has failed to appreciate that prosecutrix is a consenting party,
therefore no such allegations are made out against the
appellant and he deserves to be acquitted. He lastly argued
that there are several contradictions in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, which have been overlooked by the
trial court. The evidence and the circumstances unequivocally
give rise to false implication as against the involvement of
commission of crime, the conviction of the appellant is bad in
the eyes of law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the
6
CRA No. 227/2016
submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and
submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited
which does not call for any interference and this appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and also went
through the record with utmost circumspection.
6. “Whether the act of sexual intercourse committed by the
appellant amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC or was it
consensual?”
7. (a) PW/1 victim in his deposition before the Court has stated
that on the date of incident i.e. on 26.12.2014, she had come
to PG College Dhamtari around 10:00 AM, where the
appellant, Saurabh Chandrakar, approached her outside the
college on his motorcycle and offered to drop her at the
bookshop. After purchasing the book, the appellant claimed
he was hungry and took her to a friend’s house for breakfast.
After taking breakfast, suddenly headache occurs and she felt
dizzy, then she lay down there and she was in a semi-
conscious state. She further deposed that the accused forcibly
7
CRA No. 227/2016
had corporeal relations with her, thereafter, the prosecutrix
allegedly lost consciousness and, upon regaining it an hour
later, found herself naked and in pain.
(b) (PW-1) victim further deposed that for a few days after the
incident she remained at home; thereafter started going PG
College Dhamtari, then one day, the accused stopped her on
the way and asked her to meet him again and also asked the
victim to have corporeal relations with him. She deposed on
being asked she refused and said she does not want to meet
him to which the accused threatened to defame her and kill
her. The accused also said that he had made a video of the
corporeal relations made by him with the victim earlier on his
mobile phone and will defame her by uploading the same on
Whatsapp. She further deposed that thereafter she met the
accused after about a month and asked him for video chip
(memory card), then he gave the chip to her, thereafter, she
never met the appellant again. After the incident whenever
the appellant met the victim on road, he again ask her to meet
him to have corporeal relations, but she denied. The appellant
again threatened her to upload the video on the Whatsapp.
After someday, the victim came to know that her obscene
8
CRA No. 227/2016
video has been uploaded on whatsapp and she informed her
family members and lodged a written complaint (Ex. P/1)
against the accused. She has further deposed that the place
where the accused took her by telling that it was his friend’s
house, the same was Chhabra Lodge.
In her cross-examination the (PW-1), Victim has admitted
that when she returned to PG College at 02:00 PM, on the
date of incident she did not tell her classmates and teachers
about the incident and also admitted that even after returning
home she did not tell her parents and brother that the
accused had forcibly made corporeal relation with her. She
further admitted that the incident took place on 26.12.2014
and she lodged the report of the incident on 25.08.2015 at
Balod Police Station and further admitted that after the
incident and before lodging the report on 25.08.2015 she did
not lodge any complaint in any police station. She further
agreed that she herself went to that place again with the
accused about 01 month after the incident, then she came to
know that the place was Chhabra Lodge. She herself stated
that it was the month of February, when she went with the
accused for the second time. She admitted the fact in her
9
CRA No. 227/2016
cross examination that she went to Chhabra Lodge with the
accused for the third time in February 2015 at around 12:00
Pm; stayed with the accused for about 15 minutes and had
corporeal relation with the accused there and then came to
PG College. She admitted the fact that from which number
the video was shared on whatsapp, she don’t know. Also
admitted that she even don’t know the name of person who
showed her obscene video on whatsapp.
8. Mother (PW-2) has stated in her cross-examination that
prosecutrix did not give any information about the incident.
She has further admitted in her cross-examination that the
prosecutrix has told her about the incident on 20.08.2015.
9. Father (PW-3) has stated in his cross-examination that
prosecutrix told him about the incident on August 2015,
before that her daughter had not given any information about
the incident.
10. Raj Kumar Sori (PW-4) Investigating Officer has stated in his
cross-examination that map (Ex.P.4) which was prepared by
him does not have the signatures of any witness other than
the appellant and stated that the statement of the manager of
10
CRA No. 227/2016
Chhabra Lodge, Ajay Devangan, was recorded by him. The
Manager had said in his statement that the name and address
of all the customers who come to Lodge are recorded by him
and the owner. (PW-4) also admitted that Ajay Devangan had
also said in his statement that he does not allow anyone to
stay in his hotel without any identity card. (PW-4) also
admitted that the register of Chhabra Lodge from 26.12.2014
to 31.01.2015 has not been seized and he had gone through
the register of Chhabra Lodge from 26.12.2014 to 31.01.2015
and he did not find the names of appellant and proseuctrix
recorded in the said register. He also admitted that manager
had also said in his statement that he has never seen the
victim at Chhabra Lodge till date.
11. In the case in hand, Manager of the Chhabra Lodge has not
been examined.
12. Dr. Smt. Shashi Claudias (PW/5) in her statement stated that
after examining the victim, he did not find any mark of
struggle that should have been made during commitment of
rape on any part her body. while examining the victim it is
found that hymen membrane to be old; she is found to be
11
CRA No. 227/2016
habitual in sexual intercourse and she has not given any
opinion about the recent sexual intercourse.
13. Bare perusal of the above evidence, it is apparent that the
incident occurred on 26.12.2014, however, the complaint was
lodged on 25.08.2015, i.e., after an unexplained delay of 8
months. No explanation, reasonable or otherwise, has been
satisfactorily given by the prosecutrix (PW-1) for such
inordinate delay despite being a major and educated girl.
14. Apart from above, the testimony of the Victim would show
that She admitted that she did not inform anyone teachers,
classmates, parents on the day of the incident or soon after.
She further admitted to voluntarily accompanying the
appellant to Chhabra Lodge twice after the initial alleged
incident. On both later occasions, she had sexual relations
with the appellant. This admission, taken in light of her age
and educational background, weakens the prosecution’s case
of coercion and force.
15. Moreover, the medical examination found no signs of physical
assault or recent sexual intercourse. The hymen was found to
be old and torn, and the prosecutrix was stated to be habitual
12
CRA No. 227/2016
to sexual intercourse. No injuries were found on her body
suggestive of non-consensual physical contact. Even, there is
also no evidence of coercion or threat of injury, except bald
statement of victim to establish ingredient of Section 506 IPC,
her bald statements do not inspire confidence of the court.
Once the appellant acquitted from the offence under Section
67 of the I.T., wherein video chip was not proved, the plea of
threat cannot be a ground to explain delay in lodging the FIR.
16. It is a settled principle of criminal law that in a case of rape,
sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable and
trustworthy, is sufficient to convict the accused. However, in
the present case, her testimony suffers from multiple
inconsistencies, material omissions, and admissions that
indicate consensual relationship rather than a forcible act.
17. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that unexplained
delay in lodging FIR and absence of corroborative evidence,
especially when the prosecutrix is a major and educated
woman, casts serious doubts on the prosecution version (Ref:
Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2009 SC 174).
18. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered
13
CRA No. 227/2016
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of
rape beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence available on
record points to a consensual relationship, though perhaps a
misguided one, between two young adults.
19. The benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. Accordingly,
the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court
under Section 376 and 506 Part II IPC is hereby set aside.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has not proved
that the appellant had forcefully taken away the Victim, and
from the evidence of the victim, it is quite vivid that she
herself went to lodge, two to three times and made corporeal
relation with the appellant and has not informed anyone
about the forceful sexual intercourse, therefore, I am of the
view that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.
21. The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was
tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds
are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain
operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of
the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
22. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be
14
CRA No. 227/2016
sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for
compliance and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Shoaib