Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and the conduct of the prosecutrix can render her testimony unreliable and, in the absence of corroboration, unsafe for conviction; upholds Supreme Court precedent and serves as binding authority within the State for evaluating evidence in sexual offence prosecutions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1056/2024 of ROSHAN LAL VERMA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010159252024 |
| Date of Registration | 13-06-2024 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court decisions on delayed FIR and victim testimony in sexual offences |
| Type of Law | Criminal law, interpretation of evidence in sexual offence cases; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 |
| Questions of Law | Whether unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging FIR, coupled with the passive conduct of the prosecutrix, renders her testimony unreliable and insufficient for conviction in rape cases. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that while conviction for rape can be based on the sole testimony of the victim, such testimony must inspire confidence and be free from material inconsistencies. Where the conduct of the prosecutrix and surrounding circumstances raise doubts, and there is unexplained or inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, it is unsafe to convict solely on her testimony without corroboration. The court underscored that long silence and secretive conduct by a mature victim, without adequate explanation, weighs against the prosecution case. Relying upon Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded that in the facts of this case, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2001) 7 SCC 690; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh (2009) 1 SCC 420; Sekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) 2 SCC 176 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court analysed the value of FIR delay and the conduct of prosecutrix in rape prosecutions, referred to authoritative Supreme Court decisions stating that delay is not per se fatal but must be tested contextually. It reiterated that courts must assess if the delay or victim’s conduct is suggestive of false implication or is reasonably explained. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant, known to her through work at Bora Factory, repeatedly sexually assaulted her over a period of months under threat to her family. There was a delay of approximately six months in reporting the incidents and a further unexplained lag before filing the complaint. Physical evidence (FSL) did not support the allegations; the prosecutrix admitted prolonged silence about the alleged incidents, and her conduct indicated the possibility of consensual relations rather than coercion. The trial court convicted; the High Court re-evaluated the evidence and acquitted. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2001); State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh (2009); Sekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix in sexual offence cases must inspire confidence and, where victim conduct or delay is unexplained, corroboration is necessary.
- Explicit that mere delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal, but unexplained, inordinate delay coupled with the victim’s passive behaviour weakens prosecution.
- Lawyers should highlight or challenge delay and victim conduct in evidence to argue reliability of testimony in sexual crime cases.
- Cites recent Supreme Court authority (Sekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024) on contextual approach to FIR delay.
- Directs compliance with Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 BNSS), reinforcing new procedural requirements.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court framed the question as whether the prosecution had proven the offences beyond reasonable doubt, given the delays and circumstances.
- It examined the prosecutrix’s testimony, both before the court and under Section 164 CrPC, and closely scrutinised her admissions during cross-examination regarding the lapses and her conduct.
- Relied upon Supreme Court precedents (Ravinder Kumar, Prem Singh, Sekaran), reiterating that FIR delay is not per se fatal to prosecution, but if coupled with unexplained circumstances or conduct suggestive of consent, it undermines the prosecution case.
- Emphasised that a conviction in rape can be based solely on the victim’s testimony if it is credible, but if serious doubts arise due to unexplained silence, behaviour, or inconsistencies, corroboration is necessary.
- The bench observed that the prosecutrix’s conduct, including the long unexplained silence, lack of immediate complaint, and admissions regarding consensual relations, rendered her account unreliable.
- Accordingly, the appellant was acquitted, as the offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The judgment of conviction is perverse and unsustainable.
- Inordinate delay (about six months) in lodging the FIR with no plausible explanation.
- No allegation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act violation appeared in victim’s statements or complaint.
- Victim could not specify exact dates; alleged relationship was consensual.
- Victim’s conduct—maintaining secrecy and lack of complaint—negates the prosecution’s case.
- Trial court erroneously presumed guilt without sufficient evidence; conviction based on conjecture.
Respondent (State):
- Supported conviction; opposed petitioner’s submissions.
- Asserted no illegality or infirmity in trial court findings.
- Urged that the impugned judgment required no interference.
Factual Background
The victim, employed as a cleaner at Bora Factory, alleged that the appellant, known to her through work, repeatedly threatened her and coerced her into sexual relations at a nursery in Bahanakadi. She did not disclose these incidents to anyone, remaining silent for approximately six months. An FIR was eventually filed based on her complaint. During investigation, medical and forensic evidence was inconclusive; the victim’s statements in court included admissions about not reporting the incidents or disclosing them to her family. The trial court convicted the appellant under IPC and SC/ST Act sections. On appeal, the High Court reevaluated the evidence, especially delay and victim conduct.
Statutory Analysis
- Analysed Sections 376(2)(n), 376/511, 506 Part II, and 341 of the IPC regarding rape, attempted rape, criminal intimidation, and wrongful restraint.
- Examined Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but found no substantive allegation or evidence under the Act.
- Discussed Section 437-A, CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), for bonds to ensure appearance on potential appeal.
- The court interpreted requirements for conviction in sexual offence cases, reiterating the need for reliable, confidence-inspiring testimony and caution in cases of unexplained delay or questionable conduct.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate concurring or dissenting opinions; both judges agreed and signed the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed compliance with Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 BNSS): requiring personal bonds and sureties for appearance in the event of an SLP against the judgment.
- No new procedural precedents regarding admissibility or conduct of trial noted beyond giving effect to new code provisions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on FIR delay and victim testimony is reaffirmed and applied.