Chattisgarh High Court
Leela Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 March, 2026
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
2026:CGHC:10683
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 768 of 2005
Judgment Reserved On: 09.02.2026
Judgment Delivered On : 02.03.2026
Leela Ram S/o Duhanram Uraow Aged About 30 Years By Occupation
Agriculturist R/o Village Chendra P-S. Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Ambikapur, District Surguja
(C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate
For State : Mr. Manish Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV Judgment
1. The appellant has filed present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 456/2004 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 376 of I.P.C. : R.I. for 7 years with fine of amount Rs. 5000/-
in default of fine amount to undergo additional
R.I. for 3 months
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report on 17.12.2003 before the Police Station Ambikapur, District - Digitally signed by BHUMIKA BHUMIKA ANGARE ANGARE Date:
2026.03.02 11:50:43 +0530 2 Surguja bearing Crime No. 103 of 2003 (Ex. P/5) which has been subsequently transferred to the Police Station Dhaurpur bearing Crime No. 153 of 2003 (Ex. P/17) by the victim alleging that she was student of Class 12th and was residing in rental house of Dukhna at Dhaurpur and the appellant who was also studying started living with the victim in the same house. She has further stated that on 08.09.2000, the appellant alluring her for marriage has committed illegal act with her and after completion of study both of them have left for their respective houses on their destination place. They have mutually settled the time to meet on 15th and 31st of the month and she remained in the house of the appellant for one week where he was keeping her as a wife. She has further stated that the accused on the pretext of marriage committed rape on her. She has further stated that on 16.05.2003, when she has again visited his house and stayed at night then she told him for marriage and remained in his house on 09.06.2003 and 10.06.2003, thereafter, he has gone somewhere on 11.06.2003, thereafter, he has gone somewhere else. It is also contended that she remained in his house for 2 months, but he has not returned back. She has further stated that the accused has committed rape on her on the pretext of marriage. He has continuously committed rape with her from 08.09.2000 to 14.04.2003. On the basis of FIR, offence under Section 376 of IPC was registered against the appellant.
3. The prosecution after usual investigation has submitted charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur who has committed the criminal case for trial before the learned District and Sessions Judge Surguja, Ambikapur registered as Sessions Trial No. ST- 456/2004.
4. The prosecution to bring home guilt of the accused has placed on 3 record the documents namely report of medical examination of victim (Ex. P/1), sealed slide (Ex. P/2), farari Panchnama (Ex. P/3), statement of Paltan Ram (Ex. P/4), FIR (Ex. P/5), consent letter (Ex. P/6), najri naksha (Ex. P/7), statement of Pakri Parhin (Ex. P/8), statement of Ramadhin (Ex. P/9), statement of Taramani (Ex. P/10), Crime Details Form (Ex. P/11), acknowledgment of charge-sheet (Ex. P/12), memo regarding F.S.L. of seized articles (Ex. P/13), F.S.L. report (Ex. P/14), permission regarding medical examination of victim (Ex. P/15), application to the Medical Officer for medical examination of victim (Ex. P/16) and FIR (Ex. P/17). The prosecution examined 17 witnesses namely Smt. Nirmala Kashyap (PW-01), Somaru (PW-02), Paltan Ram (PW-03), victim (PW-04), Bigo Bai (PW-05), Dukhna Ram (PW-06), Dhaniya @ Pakriparhin (PW-07), Ram Adhin (PW-08), Smt. Piyaro Bai (PW-09) Smt. Pahuni Bai (PW-10), Dr. Smt. Pratibha Rahul Jain (PW-
11), Ku. Taramani Tirkey (PW-12), Somar Sai (PW-13), B. Ekka, Sub Inspector (PW-14), Dhirendra Singh (PW-15), K.K. Bhagat (PW-16) and Suresh Chandra Minj, Head Constable (PW-17).
5. The accused to prove his innocence has exhibited documents namely statement of victim (Ex. D/1), statement of Bigo Bai (Ex. D/2) and examined himself under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not examined any other witnesses. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has denied the allegation and taken plea of false implication to pressurize him to marry with the victim.
6. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence, material on record has convicted the appellant for 7 years for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC. The record of the case would show that the appellant remained in jail from 27.08.2004 to 10.09.2004 and thereafter, from the date of judgment i.e. 23.08.2005 till he was granted 4 bail by this Court on 23.01.2006. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction the appellant preferred this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has committed illegality in convicting the appellant as the victim is aged about 26 years and there is delay of 03 years in lodging FIR and in medical also nothing has been brought on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that victim is subjected to sexual intercourse. He would further submit that since victim is a consensual party for commission of rape, therefore, the present case falls within exception of Section 375 of the I.P.C. and does not fall within the ambit of rape as the victim is major and she is well aware of consequences of sexual relationship, thus he would pray for setting aside the judgment of conviction. To substantiate his submission that it is a consensual act and it does not amount to rape has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that the appellant from very beginning with intention to allure the victim has committed sexual offence on pretext of marriage, therefore, it cannot fall within the consensual act and does not fall within the ambit of consent as defined in Section 90 of Evidence Act, as such, finding of conviction of the trial Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality. He would further submit that in the F.S.L. report also there is clear evidence with regard to sexual intercourse with the victim. He would further submit that the victim (PW-1) has categorically explained delay in lodging FIR therefore, submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that due to delay in lodging of FIR itself the 5 conviction suffers from illegality and does not stand good and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.
10. From submission made by the parties, the point emerged for determination is whether the victim is consensual party to commit the said offence, as such the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court suffers from patent illegality warranting interference by this Court.
11. To appreciate this point this Court has to ascertain the evidence of victim (PW-04) who was examined before the trial Court wherein in her examination-in-chief, she has stated that when the accused has requested her to allow her to live in the same house, they started living in the same rented house where their foods and beds were different. On 08.09.2000 at about 12 o' clock the accused behaved illegally with her, forcefully threw away and told her that he will marry with her. She has stated that the appellant used to visit her house and clarified that the accused made physical relationship with her which is illegal behavior. She has further stated after that, he has not made physical relationship with her and when she was going to her aunt's house the accused has kept her and has taken her to his house at Chendra wherein the appellant's parents have expelled his son and she was residing in the house of appellant for two months where she was subjected to torture by the appellant's parents, but the appellant has never returned back. The victim further stated that she was residing in the house of his uncle for two years where she was residing with the accused but he has not developed any physical relation with her. 6
12. In cross-examination, the victim has stated that her date of birth is 18.10.1974 and stated that she was residing in the house of Dukhna as tenant for two months and thereafter, she was residing in the house of Bigo Bai. She has also stated that when she was residing in the house of Dukhna, she used to prepare food for the appellant also and also stated that prior to incident, their food was separately prepared and after incident, the food was jointly prepared. She has also admitted that after giving examination in the year 2001, she was residing in her house at Sikirima and the accused used to visit in her house. She has also stated that after nursing training also, the appellant used to come to her house and assured her that he will marry her. She has further stated that after returning from Pendra, when she had gone to her aunt's house, the accused caught hold of her and threatened her, took to his house at Chendra, but she has not made any complaint before the Police Station that the accused forcefully took her. She has also stated that the appellant's parents have demanded dowry. She has also stated that the parents of the appellant have given food to her for one month, thereafter, they started torturing. In paragraph 26, she has stated that the first incident was in midnight at 12-01 o'clock and the accused came to her room which was closed, but latch lock was open and the accused has made physical relationship forcefully then she cried. On hearing her cry, her grandmother and aunt have come to the room, seeing them the accused has put vermilion on her forehead and assured her that he will marry her, thereafter, she started living with him.
13. Smt. Pahuni Bai (PW-10) has stated in her examination-in-chief that the victim has told her that the accused has assured the victim that he will keep her as wife and also promised to marry her. She also stated 7 that the appellant has taken the victim to his house where he has put vermilion on her forehead. She has further stated that when they were residing at Dhaurpur the appellant has put vermilion on victim's forehead. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that she has seen that the accused has put vermilion on her forehead and also clarified that at the time of putting vermilion on victim's forehead, she along with Bigo bai were present and also admitted that when the appellant and the victim were residing at Dukhna's house their fooding was together.
14. Dr. Smt. Pratibha Rahul Jain (PW-11) has examined the victim and gave her opinion that the victim is habitual to sexual intercourse and no definite opinion regarding immediate intercourse can be given. In the FSL report (Ex. P/14), the report was found negative.
15. Learned trial Court while convicting the accused for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC has recorded its finding in paragraph 29 ignoring the FSL report where the report was found negative, but has recorded its finding that on the date of incident, rape has been committed and appellant on pretext of marriage has put vermilion on her forehead, as such, presumption goes against the accused for committing rape upon the victim. In paragraph 31 it has recorded its finding that before incident without marriage on pretext of marriage no evidence has been brought on record regarding commission of sexual assault, but there is evidence regarding forcefully threw away of the victim and committing illegal behavior, therefore, the offence under Section 493 of IPC is not established, but the offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out and accordingly, it has recorded its finding that the offence of rape has been committed.
8
16. The learned trial Court while explaining the delay in lodging the FIR was very much influenced with the reason of putting vermilion on forehead of the victim and recorded its finding of commission of rape. These findings are not only perverse but also contrary to the well settled position of law that alleged commission of rape on the pretext of marriage is not a rape as the victim was aged about 26 years on the date of alleged incident and she is major lady and aware of consequence of alleged physical relationship with the appellant.
17. From the evidence brought on record, particularly the victim's evidence wherein she has narrated that the accused and the victim were residing in the same room and their food was also prepared by her only and when the victim was alleged to have been taken by the appellant to his house where she resided for two months in house also, neither she raised any objection nor lodged a report before the Police Station. Even the FSL report is also found negative supported by the medical opinion of the doctor (PW/11) wherein she has stated that the victim is habitual of sexual relationship. These series of evidence clearly demonstrate that victim was a consensual party for alleged commission of rape.
18. From the evidence brought on record, particularly the evidence of victim wherein she has stated that in one stage of her evidence that the accused has committed illegal behavior and had forcefully thrown away and in subsequent paragraph she has stated that on the first day he has made physical relationship. In paragraph 5 she has stated that the appellant remained with her at Bigo Bai's house, but he has not made any physical relationship, thereafter, she has stated that she and appellant were residing in one room at Dukhna's house and also prepared food for him and in paragraph 18 she has stated that wrong 9 has been done by the appellant, but nothing has been clarified by her about any commission of offence of rape though she has completed nursing course. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of alleged incident she was 26 years old lady and was sell aware of the consequence of sexual act committed by the appellant. She has also stated in paragraph 21 that when the appellant forcefully took her to his house at Chendra, she has not lodged any report. Even the FSL report of the victim was found negative, as such, there is no material on record to suggest that the victim is subjected to rape by the appellant, coupled with the facts that there is delay of three years in lodging of FIR which clearly denotes that the prosecution is unable to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, delay in lodging of the FIR goes against the prosecution.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prakash Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2019) 5 SCC 628 has examined the impact of delay of lodging of FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 has held as under:
"7. In Vijayan case the prosecutrix who was aged about 17 years was the neighbor of the accused. In her testimony the prosecutrix set up the case that accused has raped her when no one else was there in the house and she was raped in the house. The accused-appellant was alleged to have been told that she need not worry as he will marry her. She did not give any complaint either to her parents and police in view of the promise. She became pregnant and while she was carrying a child of 7 months, she requested the accused to marry her. The accused declined. Thereafter a complaint was filed after 7 months. On these facts this court noted that no complaint or grievance was made either to the police or the parents thereto. The explanation for delay in lodging the FIR was noted namely that the accused promised to marry her and therefore the FIR was not filed. The Court held as follows: (SCC p. 764, para 5) "............In cases where the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is available, it is very dangerous to convict the accused, specially when the prosecutrix could venture to 10 wait for seven months for filing the FIR for rape. This leaves the accused totally defenceless. Had the prosecutrix lodged the complaint soon after the incident, there would have been some supporting evidence like the medical report or any other injury on the body of the prosecutrix so as to show the sign of rape. If the prosecutrix has willingly submitted herself to sexual intercourse and waited for seven months for filing the FIR it will be very hazardous to convict on such sole oral testimony. Moreover, no DNA test was conducted to find out whether the child was born out of the said incident of rape and that the appellant-accused was responsible for the said child. In the face of lack of any other evidence, it is unsafe to convict the accused."
20. It is well settled position of law that every consensual relationship qua alleged sexual exploitation on false pretext of marriage cannot be given a colour of false pretext to marry in the event of fallout. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in (2025) 5 SCC 749 has held in paragraph 17 as under:
"17. In our considered view, even if the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, it is improbable that the Respondent No. 2 complainant had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant, only on account of an assurance of marriage. As rightly observed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Prashant Bharti Vs State (NCT of Delhi), that it is inconceivable, that the complainant or any woman would continue to meet the Appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part."
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaspal Singh Kaural Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in (2025) 5 SCC 756 has taken the same view.
22. Considering the position of law, evidence brought on record by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the victim (PW/1) by which it has not been proved by the prosecution that the victim was subjected to rape by the appellant coupled with the fact that the FSL report was found to be negative and doctor (PW/11) has not given any exact opinion about commission of rape upon the victim. 11
23. From the material placed on record by the prosecution, it is quite vivid that the victim is a consensual party and if at all any commission of offence of rape on the pretext of marriage is committed by the appellant with the victim who was aged about 26 years at the time of alleged incident and in view of well settled position of law that alleged sexual relationship on the pretext of marriage is not always rape when particularly the prosecution is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has made alleged physical relationship with the victim to fulfill his desire only not intend to marry, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC, therefore, the order of conviction which is based on perversity, illegality deserves to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside, the accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
24. It is reported that the appellant is on bail by this Court, his bail bond shall remain in force for six months as per the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C (Section 480(6) of BNNS, 2023).
25. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika