In Raju Sahu v. State, Chhattisgarh HC set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment u/s 376(1) and 506 IPC, holding that trial court failed to appreciate material defence evidence and convicted appellant solely on the uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix.

Court observed that appellant had taken legal steps to protect himself from false allegations well before FIR was registered, including filing a complaint against the prosecutrix and sending her a legal notice.

The prosecution alleged that on 29.09.2006, appellant established physical relations with prosecutrix on false promise of marriage and continued to have sexual intercourse with her until November 2006.

It was further alleged that, at appellant's instance, she went to his house on 04.11.2006, where he again had physical relations with her before ultimately refusing to marry her. Based on these allegations, prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 22.12.2006, following which appellant was convicted by the trial court.

The appellant denied the allegations and relied on a complaint dated 11.11.2006 and a legal notice dated 15.11.2006, both issued well before FIR. He contended that these documents clearly showed he had approached the authorities to protect himself from anticipated false allegations.

Court closely examined prosecutrix's testimony and noted that although she alleged appellant exploited her physically every other day at a pump house, she neither resisted nor raised any alarm despite the alleged place of occurrence being adjacent to a thoroughfare and a pond frequently used by villagers. Court also noted her admission that she never disclosed the relationship to her parents.

Court further found that the testimonies of the prosecutrix's parents did not support the prosecution's case. Her father admitted he had pressured the appellant through a Panchayat to marry his daughter and also acknowledged that appellant had lodged a complaint and issued a legal notice before FIR. Court observed that the allegations in FIR were not corroborated by either parent.

Medical evidence also did not support prosecution's case. The doctor found no external or internal injuries on the prosecutrix, and her pregnancy test was negative.

High Court further held that prosecution had failed to satisfactorily explain considerable delay in lodging the FIR and that there was no cogent or reliable evidence corroborating the prosecutrix's testimony.

Accordingly, High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.