The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the conviction of a man for offences under Sections 376(1) and 506 Part II IPC, holding that the trial court failed to appreciate material evidence produced by the defence, including a complaint and legal notice issued by the accused prior to the lodging of the rape FIR. The Court observed that such legal steps taken by the accused to protect himself from alleged false accusations could not be ignored while assessing the credibility of the prosecution case.

Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, convicting the appellant for rape and criminal intimidation. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix alleged that the appellant had first established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage on 29.09.2006 and thereafter repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her until November 2006. She further alleged that she was taken to the appellant's house, where he continued to have physical relations with her, but ultimately refused to marry her, leading to the lodging of the FIR on 22.12.2006. The appellant, apart from denying the allegations, relied upon a complaint dated 11.11.2006 and a legal notice dated 15.11.2006 issued by him against the prosecutrix, contending that they had been initiated much before the FIR to protect himself from false allegations.

The Court examined the evidence of the prosecutrix and found that she admitted that the alleged physical relationship continued over several occasions and that she neither resisted nor raised any alarm despite the alleged place of occurrence being adjacent to a thoroughfare and a pond frequently used by villagers. The Court also noted her admission that she had not disclosed the relationship to her parents.

The Court also observed that the medical examination did not reveal any external or internal injuries. The Court attached significance to the fact that much before the FIR was lodged on 22.12.2006, the appellant had already lodged a complaint on 11.11.2006 and issued a legal notice on 15.11.2006. It observed that these documents indicated that the appellant had taken legal recourse to protect himself from the allegations subsequently levelled against him, and the trial court completely ignored these material defence documents, rendering its approach unsustainable in law.

“… much prior to the lodging of the alleged report… a complaint (Ex.D-7) was lodged by the appellant… followed by a legal notice… the same has been made by him in order to save himself from the alleged false allegations levelled by the prosecutrix, which, therefore, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the alleged allegation of her is not only a false one, but has been made with an ulterior motive,” the Court observed.

Holding that there was no cogent and reliable evidence corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix and that the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court found it unsafe to sustain the conviction solely on her allegations.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Case Title: Raju Sahu v. The State of Chhattisgarh [CRA No. 487 of 2008].

Click Here To Read/Download Order