Chattisgarh High Court
Dhaneshwari Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:11164-DB
AKHILESH
BEOHAR NAFR
Digitally signed by
AKHILESH BEOHAR
Date: 2026.03.10 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
17:37:36 +0530
ACQA No. 782 of 2019
• XYZ
... Appellant/Victim
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Adim Jati
Kalyan Thana, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
2. Gangadhar Bairagi @ Baijnath, S/o Gurudev Bairagi, aged about 27
Years, Occupation - Cultivator and Student, R/o Village - Tora, Police
Station - Sariya District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
09/03/2026
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
Heard on admission.
1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the victim challenging the judgment dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), in Special Case (Atrocities Act) No.30/2018, whereby respondent No.2/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k)(n) and 493 of Indian Penal 2 Code (in short, 'IPC') and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989') by extending the benefit of doubt.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.05.2018, victim, aged about 28 years and belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, lodged a written complaint (Ex.P-1) at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh stating that while pursuing her B.Ed. course at IASE College, Bilaspur during the academic session 2015-2017, she came in contact with respondent No.2/accused- Gangadhar Bairagi during a college programme in January, 2016 and their acquaintance gradually developed into a love relationship. According to the prosecution, on 22.03.2017, accused/respondent No.2 took the victim to the house of his brother at Ram Bhatha, Raigarh and on the assurance of marriage, established physical relations with her and thereafter continued such relations on several occasions on the same pretext. Later, when the victim insisted upon marriage, the accused refused and his family members also declined the proposal on the ground of inter-caste difference. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Exs.P-10 & P-13) was registered against the accused/respondent No.2.
3. During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent of the victim vide Ex.P-2, she was sent for medical examination. PW-2 Dr. D.A. examined her and did not find any injury on her person nor any sign of forcible sexual intercourse and gave MLC report (Ex.P-6). Vide Ex.P-3, caste certificate of the victim was seized. Thereafter, the accused/respondent No.2 was taken into custody vide Ex.P-10.
4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent 3 No.2 before the concerned trial Court. The accused/respondent No.2 abjured the guilt and prayed for trial
5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the charges leveled against him.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/victim submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-1 (victim), to establish that accused/respondent No.2, on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her on several occasions and subsequently refused to marry her. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State supports the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/victim.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-
"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."4
10. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the testimony of PW-1 (victim). She deposed that she came in contact with accused/respondent No.2 in January, 2016 during a college programme and thereafter they started communicating regularly through mobile phone and WhatsApp and gradually their relationship became close. According to her, on 22.03.2017, the accused/respondent No.2 took her to the house of his brother at Ram Bhatha, Raigarh, where he established physical relations with her. She further stated that thereafter the accused/respondent No.2 continued to establish physical relations with her and whenever she insisted upon marriage, the accused assured her that he would marry her after completion of his studies. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that she had come to Bilaspur in September, 2015 to pursue the B.Ed. course and became acquainted with the accused/respondent No.2 in January, 2016. She further admitted that they used to chat frequently on WhatsApp and that their relationship became close in February, 2016, and from June, 2016 they were in a love relationship and used to meet frequently. She also admitted that after the alleged first incident dated 22.03.2017, she neither raised any alarm nor made any complaint to anyone and returned to the girls' hostel at Bilaspur the same evening without informing the hostel warden, her roommates or any other person about the alleged incident. She also admitted that even thereafter she continued to meet the accused/respondent No.2 and established physical relations with him on several occasions, including at the house of a friend of the accused and once at a hotel, and that she used to travel with the accused/respondent No.2 to Raigarh and maintained the relationship for a considerable period.
5
11. Apart from this, Dr. D.A. (PW-2), who conducted the medical examination of the victim, did not give any definite opinion regarding forcible sexual intercourse with the victim. PW-2 deposed that the victim had informed her that she had been in a relationship with the accused/respondent No.2 and that there had been no physical relations between them during the last eleven months. Further, father (PW-3) and mother (PW-5) of the victim deposed that they came to know about the relationship between the victim and the accused only after receiving information from Sakhi Centre, Raigarh. According to them, prior to that the victim had not disclosed anything about the alleged incident to them.
12. Thus, from the perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that the victim was a major and had been in a love relationship with the accused/respondent No.2 for a considerable period, and that she was a consenting party to the alleged acts. Her own testimony shows that even after the alleged first incident, she continued to meet the accused and maintained physical relations with him on several occasions. She neither raised any alarm nor disclosed the alleged incident to anyone. It is also evident that she travelled and stayed with the accused/respondent No.2 at different places on her own free will. In such circumstances, the allegations of forcible physical relations on the false pretext of marriage are not established against the accused/respondent No.2 and it is also not proved that the alleged act was committed on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste community.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-
6
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-
"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;'
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and possible view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
15. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/victim against the acquittal of accused/respondent No.2 is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Akhilesh