Rape Is An Affront To Womanhood And A Grave Violation Of Dignity: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Appeal, Upholds Rape Conviction
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Chhattisgarh High Court Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas has dismissed a criminal appeal and upheld the appellant’s conviction and sentence for rape and related offences, directing him to surrender before the trial court within three months, with set-off for custody already undergone, and cancelling his bail bonds. While affirming the conviction, the Court stated that rape is an affront to womanhood and a grave violation of Article 21, including the rights to live with dignity, bodily privacy, and personal liberty.
The criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jashpur, by which the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 506, 323, 342, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on the night of the incident, the married victim had gone out searching for her husband, who had not returned home. While she was returning, the accused allegedly intercepted her, threatened her with an axe, assaulted her, forcibly carried her to a house located in a forest area, and confined her therein. It was alleged that the accused removed her clothes and subjected her to repeated sexual assault during the night.
The prosecution relied upon the testimony of the victim, her husband, supporting witnesses before whom the incident was narrated, medical evidence recording multiple injuries, seizure of broken bangles and an axe, and forensic reports detecting human sperm on seized articles.
The defence contended that the act was consensual, alleging a prior illicit relationship between the parties and asserting false implication after the incident was discovered. One defence witness was examined to support this version. The accused also denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court examined whether the act in question could be treated as consensual within the meaning of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code as it stood prior to the 2013 amendment.
The Bench observed: "Rape is one of the gravest and most heinous offences against a woman. It is an affront to womanhood itself, striking at the core of her dignity, modesty, and honour. The offence inflicts deep and lasting trauma, shattering her sense of self, autonomy, and confidence. It is not merely a crime against an individual, but an offence against society at large. Such an act amounts to a brutal invasion of the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, namely, the right to life with dignity, bodily privacy, and personal liberty.”
Upon appraisal of the victim’s testimony, the Court observed that “the victim has categorically stated that she was threatened with an axe, assaulted, forcibly taken and subjected to rape despite resistance”.
While considering the medical evidence, the Court recorded that “the injuries found on the right knee, back of the leg and elbow corroborate the version of the victim and do not support a theory of voluntary participation”. The explanation offered in cross-examination that such injuries could occur while jumping a wall was noted, but the Court stated that “mere possibility of alternate cause does not dilute the probative value of consistent ocular evidence”.
On the defence plea of consent and alleged illicit relationship, the Court observed that “if the relationship was consensual, there was no plausible reason for the victim to be forcibly carried at night, confined in a locked house, and subjected to repeated sexual assault under threat”. The testimony of the defence witness was disbelieved, with the Court stating that “the version put forth by the defence witness does not inspire confidence and remains unsubstantiated”.
The Court relied upon settled principles that absence of injuries on private parts is not decisive and observed that “the victim being a mother of two children, the absence of injuries on private parts cannot by itself negate the offence of rape”.
With respect to forensic evidence, the Court recorded that “the presence of human sperm on the petticoat, undergarments and slides, as reported by the FSL, lends corroboration to the prosecution case”.
The Court further examined compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that “all incriminating circumstances were put to the accused and sufficient opportunity to explain was afforded”. On the standard of proof, the Court stated that “the testimony of the victim is reliable, inspires confidence, and is sufficient to sustain conviction even without independent corroboration”.
The Court dismissed the criminal appeal, holding that “the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the findings of the trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference”.
“The appellant is directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court within three months to undergo the remaining part of the sentence after giving set-off of the period of 7 months already undergone by him during trial as well as after conviction prior to his release on bail by this Court. As the appellant is reported to be on bail, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled in view of Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023”.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Ms. Ananya Tiwari, Advocate, instructed by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer
Case Title: Mahaveer Chaik v State of Chhattisgarh Neutral Citation: 2026: CGHC:5632
Case Number: CRA No. 18 of 2005
Bench: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
