Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA No. 256 of 2007 of Kole @ Deeman Rathore vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010007092007 |
| Date of Registration | 04-04-2007 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench (Justice Rajani Dubey) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a conviction under Section 376 IPC can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a “suspected” prosecutrix when medical evidence does not support recent intercourse and no test-identification parade was conducted. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The prosecutrix alleged rape by appellant on 27-04-2004; FIR lodged same day at 17:30 hrs; medical examination on 29-04-2004 showed only abrasions; no internal injury or definite opinion on recent intercourse; no test-identification parade; defence plea of enmity and hearing disability of prosecutrix. |
| Citations |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that uncorroborated prosecutrix testimony, when found “suspicious,” cannot sustain a rape conviction under Section 376 IPC.
- Clarifies that absence of a test‐identification parade and medical evidence negative for recent intercourse must tilt the balance in favour of the accused.
- Emphasises rigorous application of the “sterling witness” criteria from Rai Sandeep (2012 8 SCC 21) in sexual‐offence trials.
- Confirms that delay in FIR and inconsistent answers under cross‐examination can undermine the quality of the prosecution’s core witness.
- Provides a binding approach for Chhattisgarh’s subordinate courts to grant benefit of doubt where prosecutrix evidence fails the high standard.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Framing of Charge and Evidence
Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based solely on prosecutrix testimony. -
Test for “Sterling Witness”
- Court applied criteria from Rai Sandeep: consistency, unassailability, correlation with material facts.
-
Assessment of Prosecutrix Testimony
Found her answers inconsistent, partly inaudible, and dependent on husband’s gestures. -
Medical Evidence and Identification Parade
Medical report (Ex.P/12) showed no internal injury or conclusive signs of intercourse; no identification parade conducted. -
Benefit of Doubt
Given the suspicious nature of the core testimony and lack of corroboration, conviction cannot legally stand. -
Application of Precedent
Followed Rai Sandeep (2012 8 SCC 21) and Nehnu Ram (2020 4 RCR (Criminal) 104) to acquit appellant.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Petitioner)
- Narrative of prosecutrix improbable and suspicious.
- Unexplained delay in lodging FIR and late medical examination undermines credibility.
- Prosecutrix pretended to be hard of hearing to evade cross‐examination; medical report does not support hearing disability.
- Relied on Nehnu Ram @ Narendra (2020 4 RCR (Criminal) 104) to stress standard for witness reliability.
State (Respondent)
- Trial court meticulously appreciated all oral and documentary evidence.
- No basis to overturn conviction; prosecutrix testimony was correctly accepted.
Factual Background
The prosecutrix, a married woman, was allegedly accosted by the appellant on 27-04-2004 while walking to her parental home. She claimed he forcibly took her to a drain and committed rape. She lodged an FIR at 17:30 hrs the same day and underwent medical examination on 29-04-2004. The police prepared a spot map, seized a bicycle, and arrested the appellant. The trial court convicted him under Section 376 IPC based on her testimony, medical evidence, and witness depositions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 376 IPC: Defines rape and prescribes punishment; conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Section 374(2) CrPC: Criminal appeal jurisdiction exercised to re-evaluate evidence and legal standards.
- Section 437-A CrPC: Provision for bond on acquittal pending possible Supreme Court leave petition.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Strict application of “sterling witness” test from Rai Sandeep (2012 8 SCC 21).
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44671 (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur)
- Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21
- Nehnu Ram @ Narendra vs State of Rajasthan, (2020) 4 RCR (Criminal) 104