Case Law Details
Chatt Kunwar Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
The matter includes proceedings before the Supreme Court and an appeal decided by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. Before the Supreme Court, the case was listed with directions to the State to produce respondent no.2. Although it was stated that the respondent had been produced earlier, he was not present on the scheduled date despite specific directions. The Court took strong exception to this non-compliance and directed the Superintendent of Police, Korba, to appear and show cause for the failure to comply with the Court’s order. The Court also directed that respondent no.2 be physically produced on the next date and clarified that all logistics and costs for such production would be borne by the State authorities.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Chhattisgarh HC Granted Acquittal Due to Contradictory Witness Testimony & Lack of Proof
The High Court proceedings arose from an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the conviction and sentence dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Korba. The appellant had been convicted under Section 376(2)(L) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w) of the Atrocities Act, with sentences including life imprisonment.
The prosecution case was based on a complaint by the victim’s mother alleging that her daughter, who had been suffering from mental health issues, was taken by the accused on a motorcycle and later returned with injuries and torn clothes. It was alleged that the accused had taken her to another location and committed rape. An FIR was registered, and after investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced documentary evidence.
The appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the prosecutrix was not examined during trial and her prior statements did not mention rape. It was further argued that key witnesses were not examined, medical evidence did not support the allegation of sexual assault, and no DNA test was conducted to link the accused with the semen found on seized articles. It was also contended that the caste certificate was not properly proved and that there was no medical evidence regarding the victim’s mental condition.
The State argued that sufficient evidence had been led and that the trial court’s judgment was justified.
Upon evaluation, the High Court noted that the conviction was primarily based on the testimony of the victim’s parents. However, material contradictions were found in their statements regarding the place of occurrence. The Court also noted that a witness named by the mother to corroborate her version was not examined.
The Court observed that the prosecutrix was not examined, making it difficult to establish the allegation of rape. Medical evidence showed no injuries on the genitalia and no indication of recent intercourse, though some bruises were present. Although semen was detected on certain articles, the absence of DNA testing made it impossible to link it to the accused.
The Court emphasized that while conviction can be based on evidence other than that of the prosecutrix, such evidence must still establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. It expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation, noting that key witnesses were not examined and that the prosecutrix evidence was not brought on record, depriving the accused of an opportunity for cross-examination.
It was further observed that there was no eyewitness to the alleged offence and no conclusive medical or forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime. The Court reiterated that conviction must be based on legal evidence and not on moral assumptions or inferences drawn from the seriousness of the allegation. The trial court was found to have relied on surmises and unwarranted inferences.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the offence under Section 376(2)(L) IPC was not proved. Consequently, the charges under the Atrocities Act also could not be sustained. The prosecution was found to have failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Directions were also issued for furnishing of bonds under Section 437-A CrPC.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
On 23.03.2026, the matter was directed to be listed on 15.04.2026 where the State was directed to produce respondent no.2 before this Court. On 15.04.2026, though the matter was listed before the Regular Bench but was not taken up as there was no sitting of the Bench due to the Constitution Bench sitting, the Court Master had taken instructions with regard to the next listing of the case on 20.04.2026, i.e., today. Learned Counsel for the State also informed the Court Master that respondent no.2 was present on that day. On the next day, i.e., 16.04.2026, the present matter was mentioned by the learned counsel for the State informing that the respondent no.2 was produced on 15.04.2026 and has gone back and had sought exemption from his appearance today. On this, the Court had clearly observed that respondent no.2 should be present in Court today.
2. Today, we are informed that the respondent no.2 is not present in Court. We take strong exception to such conduct of the State of Chhattisgarh. The directions were given to the State and today, the State is saying that on the last date, i.e., on 15.04.2026, respondent no.2 was produced under the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Korba, by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Korba. We find that the Superintendent of Police, Korba, is required to show cause as to why the Court may not pass appropriate orders against him for such blatant and deliberate violation of the direction of this Court to produce the respondent no.2 today.
3. Accordingly, let the Superintendent of Police, Korba, be present in Court on 24.04.2026 at 10.30 a.m. along with her/his show cause to explain the circumstances. The respondent no.2 shall also be physically present in the Court on the said date, i.e., 24.04.2026.
4. It goes without saying that the entire logistics and cost of producing the respondent no.2 before the Court shall be borne by the State authorities.
Author Bio
