Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case for Want of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Background of the Appeal

An appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came up before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the judgment dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Korba in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2020.

The Special Judge had convicted the appellant, Chandra Kumar Jaiswal @ Butu, for serious offences including:

  • Section 376(2)(L) of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
  • Section 3(1)(w) of the Atrocities Act

The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently and included:

  • Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376(2)(L) IPC, with further rigorous imprisonment in default
  • Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, with default sentence
  • Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 3(1)(w) of the Atrocities Act, with default sentence

The appellant assailed this conviction and sentence before the High Court.

Prosecution Narrative and Investigation

According to the prosecution, the mother of the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at Urga Police Station, District Korba, stating:

  • She was residing in village Tilkeja.
  • Her daughter, aged about 26 years, had allegedly been suffering from mental health issues for the past 8–9 years and remained unstable despite treatment.
  • On 03.05.2020 at around 7:00 PM, the victim left home and walked towards the local high school.
  • At that time, the accused, Chandra Kumar Jaiswal, allegedly picked her up on his motorcycle on the pretext of dropping her home.
  • Instead of taking her home, he was alleged to have taken her to another place, assaulted her and committed rape.
  • The mother further claimed that the incident was allegedly seen by villagers named Bharat Karsh and Narmada Patre.

Based on this written report, an FIR was registered at Urga Police Station under Section 376 IPC vide Crime No. 149/2020.

Subsequently, during the investigation it was noticed that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Consequently, the case diary was transmitted to Ajak Police Station, Korba, for further investigation from the angle of offences under the Atrocities Act.

During the investigation:

  • The caste certificate of the victim was seized on 29.05.2020.
  • Other usual steps of investigation such as seizure of clothes, medical examination, and recording of statements under Section 161 CrPC were conducted.
  • After completion of the investigation, a final report/chargesheet was filed against the accused for offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.

Trial Proceedings Before the Special Judge

Framing of Charges

On 19.01.2021, the Special Judge framed charges against the accused under:

  • Sections 376(2)(L) and 376(2)(k) IPC
  • Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w) of the Atrocities Act

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution examined 8 witnesses and produced 22 documents in support of its case. The witnesses included:

  1. PW-1 – Mother of the victim
  2. PW-2 – Father of the victim
  3. PW-3 – Sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the victim, Tulsi Mala Sarathi
  4. PW-4 – Medical Officer, Dr. K.B. Singh
  5. PW-5 – Investigating Officer, Inspector Abhay Singh
  6. PW-6 – Inspector Mrs. Bhavna Khandare Singh
  7. PW-7 – Lady Medical Officer, Dr. Ananya Srivastava
  8. PW-8 – Zonal Superintendent of Police, Ramgopal Kariyare

The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the incriminating circumstances and asserted his innocence. No defence evidence was adduced.

Relying primarily on the oral testimony of the victim’s parents and the documentary record, the Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as already noted.

Grounds of Challenge Before the High Court

The appellant’s counsel mounted a detailed challenge to the conviction on multiple fronts, highlighting critical deficiencies in the prosecution case:

1. Non-examination of the Prosecutrix