News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 168 | 2026:CGHC:9583
February 24, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has acquitted a man who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison for rape and house trespass, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In a judgment delivered on February 24, 2026, Justice Rajani Dubey allowed the criminal appeal filed by Ram Khilavan, who had challenged his conviction under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code by a Sessions Court in Bilaspur in 2007.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on the night of October 2, 2006, in a village under Ratanpur police station in Bilaspur district. The prosecutrix alleged that the accused, who was related to her family, came to her house around 9.30 pm while she was alone and forcibly entered after she opened the door. She stated that he dragged her, assaulted her and committed rape before fleeing the scene, allegedly leaving behind some clothing.
An FIR was lodged the following afternoon. During investigation, the police seized the clothes of the prosecutrix and other articles from the spot. She was medically examined, and vaginal slides were sent for forensic examination. The accused was also medically examined and later charges were framed under Sections 376 and 450 IPC.
The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on each count, along with fines.
Grounds of Appeal
Before the High Court, the defence argued that there was an unexplained delay of about 18 hours in lodging the FIR, despite the prosecutrix claiming that she had immediately informed neighbours and relatives. It was also contended that the medical examination did not reveal any internal or external injuries, even though she alleged that she had been dragged and assaulted.
The defence further pointed to the absence of a forensic science laboratory report on the vaginal slides and highlighted an admitted land dispute between the families, suggesting possible motive for false implication.
The State, on the other hand, maintained that delay in reporting sexual assault is not uncommon, particularly in rural settings, and that conviction can rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court reiterated the settled principle that conviction in a rape case can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, provided her evidence is of “sterling quality” and inspires full confidence. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, which elaborates on the standard required for treating a witness as a “sterling witness.”
Applying that standard, the court found significant inconsistencies. Although the prosecutrix alleged that she was dragged for about 15 feet on a stony courtyard and that her bangles broke during the scuffle, the medical report did not record any corresponding injuries. The doctor who examined her did not give a definite opinion regarding rape.
The court also noted that while vaginal slides were sent for chemical examination, the prosecution failed to produce the FSL report at trial. This omission, the court said, left a crucial evidentiary gap.
Further, the prosecutrix and her husband admitted that a land dispute with the accused was pending before the revenue court. While the existence of a dispute does not by itself discredit a witness, the court observed that it required closer scrutiny of the testimony. The seizure witness did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. No independent witness corroborated hearing any alarm, despite the prosecutrix stating that she had screamed during the incident.
Taking these factors cumulatively, the High Court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix did not attain the standard of a “sterling witness” and that the inconsistencies created reasonable doubt.
Conviction Set Aside
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 450 IPC and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The court directed him to furnish a bond under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appear before the Supreme Court if required.
The judgment underscores that while courts are sensitive to the realities of sexual assault cases, convictions must still rest on evidence that meets the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Reference : CRA No. 597 of 2007, Ram Khilavan S/o Kodu Shikari v. State of Chhattisgarh; Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate; Counsel for the Respondent/State: Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
