Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Man Convicted of Rape After Finding Prosecution Evidence Uncorroborated and Defence Documents Ignored by Trial Court

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside a 2008 Sessions Court conviction under Section 376(1) IPC, finding the prosecutrix's testimony unsupported by her parents, medical evidence, or forensic results, and holding that the trial court had completely ignored the appellant's defence documents.

Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, sitting singly at the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, allowed a criminal appeal filed by Raju Sahu and set aside his conviction and sentence for offences under Section 376(1) and Section 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa had convicted Sahu in Sessions Trial No. 167/2007 and sentenced him on 23 April 2008 to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the rape charge and three years for criminal intimidation, both sentences running concurrently. The High Court, pronouncing its judgment on 29 June 2026, found the prosecution evidence bereft of corroboration, the forensic record incomplete, and the trial court's approach legally unsustainable for having ignored documentary evidence produced by the defence.

The Allegations and the Trial Court's Findings

The FIR in this case, registered as Crime No. 322/2006 at Police Chowki Hasaud, Janjgir Champa, was lodged by the prosecutrix on 22 December 2006. According to the FIR, the appellant had on 29 September 2006 dragged her towards a Pump House, committed sexual intercourse while promising to marry her, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. She alleged further that he exploited her physically on subsequent occasions at the same location, and that on 4 November 2006, following his instructions, she entered his house and continued to be subjected to intercourse on the pretext of marriage. When he eventually refused to marry her and fled, she lodged the report.

The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. The investigating agency sent the prosecutrix's petticoat, vaginal slide, the appellant's undergarments, and a semen slide for chemical examination. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Saroj Kachhap (PW-5), whose MLC report (Ex. P-7) found her habitual to intercourse and recorded no internal or external injuries. The charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, who committed the matter to the Sessions Court.

The trial court convicted the appellant on the reasoning that the prosecutrix's consent for sexual intercourse had been obtained on a false promise of marriage and therefore could not be treated as consensual. It also held that the delay of more than two and a half months in lodging the FIR did not benefit the accused because the prosecutrix had been kept assured of marriage throughout the intervening period.

The Appellant's Challenge

Mr. S.C. Verma, senior counsel for the appellant, argued before the High Court that the trial court had failed to scan the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective and had not considered the defence documents at all. He pointed specifically to a complaint (Ex. D-7) lodged by the appellant himself against the prosecutrix on 11 November 2006 and a legal notice (Ex. D-3) issued on 15 November 2006 — both filed before the prosecutrix lodged her FIR on 22 December 2006. The senior counsel contended that if the alleged relations had been without consent, the FIR would not have been delayed by more than two and a half months, and that even on the prosecution's own case, the intercourse was with the consent of the prosecutrix.

The State, represented by Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer, supported the trial court's judgment.

How the High Court Analysed the Evidence

Justice Agrawal examined the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-4) alongside that of her parents. From the prosecutrix's own statement, the court noted that a pond near the Pump House was adjacent to a thoroughfare frequented by people who could hear even a normal voice. Despite this, she neither resisted during the alleged intercourse nor raised an alarm. Paragraph 13 of her testimony, the court observed, indicated that the intercourse was being done on her own wish voluntarily every other day, and she never disclosed the alleged fact to her parents.

The testimony of her father (PW-7) was also carefully examined. He stated that he had pressurised the appellant to marry his daughter through the Panchayat, and he admitted that the appellant had lodged a complaint against his daughter on 11 November 2006 and had also issued a legal notice. Critically, neither parent had any independent knowledge of the alleged sexual exploitation before the Panchayat meetings, and the facts narrated by the prosecutrix about pregnancy and threats were not reflected in the accounts given by either parent. The mother (PW-6) had been away in Delhi for livelihood and was unaware of what had transpired.

The court then turned to the medical and forensic evidence. The pregnancy test of the prosecutrix was not found to be positive, as Dr. Saroj Kachhap confirmed in her testimony. The articles seized for chemical examination — the petticoat, vaginal slide, and the appellant's undergarments — were sent for examination vide memo dated 12 February 2007 (Ex. P-25), but no chemical examination report was placed on record. Given this gap, the High Court held that no reliance could be placed on the prosecutrix's version that she had become pregnant or was physically exploited by the appellant.

On the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23 December 2006 (Ex. D-2), Justice Agrawal found that the material facts about pregnancy and threats were absent there as well, reinforcing the conclusion that her account lacked corroboration.

The Defence Documents the Trial Court Overlooked

The High Court treated the appellant's pre-FIR complaint and legal notice as a significant factor. The complaint (Ex. D-7) dated 11 November 2006 and the legal notice (Ex. D-3) dated 15 November 2006 were both made before the prosecutrix lodged her FIR on 22 December 2006. The father of the prosecutrix had admitted the existence of both these documents during cross-examination, explaining that they were issued when the appellant was threatened.

Justice Agrawal held that a bare perusal of these documents showed they were made by the appellant to protect himself from allegedly false allegations. He concluded that the prior complaint and legal notice led to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecutrix's allegations were not only false but were made with an ulterior motive. The court observed in plain terms that the trial court had completely ignored these materials while convicting the appellant, and that such an approach

The Broader Reasoning

The High Court's analysis rested on the cumulative effect of several deficiencies in the prosecution case taken together: the absence of any corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony by her own parents; the fact that neither the pregnancy claim nor the threats were reflected in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement or in the FIR itself; the absence of injuries in the MLC report; the non-production of the chemical examination report despite articles having been sent for testing; and the existence of the defence documents predating the FIR.

The court did not accept the trial court's characterisation of the intercourse as non-consensual solely on the basis of the false-promise-of-marriage theory, because the testimony itself, on the court's reading, indicated voluntary participation and the complainant's own conduct — entering the appellant's house as per his instructions, continuing the relationship, and not disclosing anything to her parents — undermined the prosecution's narrative.

Justice Agrawal stated that in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-4), it was difficult to hold the appellant guilty based on bare allegations made considerably after the alleged occurrence without any plausible explanation for the delay.

Outcome

The High Court allowed CRA No. 487 of 2008. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23 April 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa in Sessions Trial No. 167/2007 were set aside. Raju Sahu was acquitted of all charges framed against him under Section 376(1) and Section 506 Part-II of the IPC.

Since the appellant was already on bail, the court directed that he need not surrender. His bail bond was ordered to remain in operation for a further period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The court further directed that a certified copy of the judgment along with the original records be transmitted to the trial court forthwith.