Chattisgarh High Court
X.Y.Z vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
Digitally
signed
by AMIT
PATEL
1
2026:CGHC:11301-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 236 of 2024
1 - X.Y.Z
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Police Station Jainagar, District
Surajpur (C.G.)
2 - Baleshwar Saonwani S/o Virjhuram Sonwani, Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Pachira, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause Title Taken From CIS System)
For Appellant : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate
For State : Mr. Narayan Prasad, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 2 : None present, though served
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, J.
10.03.2026
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Special Court, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in 2 Sessions Trial No. 56/2023, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of offence under Sections 376, 323 and 506-B of I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.04.2023, the prosecutrix lodged a written report (Ex. P/1) against the accused at Police Station Jainagar alleging that on 13.04.2023 she was standing at Bishrampur Bus Stand to pick up her son from Central School, Ambikapur. At that time, the accused/her uncle-in-law, came in his Bolero car, asked her to sit in the vehicle on the pretext that he was going to Ambikapur and at about 12:30 PM took her to the Silfili Baramil forest, where he started expressing his love and desire for her, when she protested, he assaulted her on the back with a stick and committed forcible sexual intercourse by laying her in the middle seat of his car and introduced fear to her by cutting her hair with scissors. On the written report (Ex. P/1) of the prosecutrix, Police Station- Jainagar registered an F.I.R. (Ex. P/2) against the accused for offence under Sections 376(1), 323 and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, on 18.04.2023, the accused was arrested and after completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of offence under Sections 376, 323 and 506-B of IPC., against which the present appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment without appreciating the material available on record. Learned trial Court has given grandness 3 to minor contradictions and omissions and passed the impugned judgment which is bad in law and liable to be dismissed. The complainant/prosecutrix, examined as PW-1, deposed that the respondent No. 2/accused committed the alleged offence forcibly against her will, assaulted her, and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. This material testimony of the prosecutrix has not been rebutted. It is a well-settled proposition of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Sarvatha Pandey, who found signs of forcible sexual intercourse and noted seven injuries, including a contusion on the thigh, thereby supporting the prosecution case. PW-2, the prosecutrix's husband has supported the prosecution case and explained the delay in lodging the FIR and other witnesses have also supported the prosecution. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court acquitted respondent No. 2 on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, whereas in her deposition she clearly stated that the offence was committed against her will. Hence, in light of Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Phool Singh vs. State of M.P.1, State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary and others 2 & Deepak vs. State of Haryana3.
1 (2022) 2 SCC 74 2 (2019) 11 SCC 575 3 (2015) 4 SCC 762 4
4. Learned counsel for the State supporting the argument of counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order in a cryptic and laconic manner without appreciating the material available on record and the accused/ respondent No. 2 is liable to be convicted for the said offences. The impugned judgment, finding and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper,incorrect and is liable to be set aside.
5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2/accused, despite service of notice upon him.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the accused/respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 376, 323 and 506-B of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges.
8. PW-1, the prosecutrix has stated that on 13.04.2023, she was going to Central School, Ambikapur to pick up her son by Jeep (taxi), she boarded a taxi from Village Pachira, but the driver dropped her in the midway at Bishrampur, stating there were no other passengers and advised her to use another mode of transport to reach Ambikapur. She then went to Bishrampur bus stand to buy fruit, but could not. The accused- Baleshwar Soni, her uncle-in-law arrived in a Bolero car and asked her as to where she was going, to which she replied she was going to Ambikapur to pick up her son. The accused asked her to get 5 into his car, stating that he was also going to Ambikapur and he would drop her. She initially refused, but he insisted and then she agreed. He then drove to Silfili forest between Ambikapur, closed the car doors and when she asked where he was going, he told her to "shut up." The accused started expressing his love and desire for her, when she protested, the accused assaulted her with a stick as a result of which, blood was oozing from her head and she became unconscious and committed forcible sexual intercourse by laying her in the middle seat of the car and cutting her hair with scissors. Then, she filed a written complaint vide Ex. P/1, lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station- Jainagar vide Ex. P/2, spot map was prepared by police vide Ex.P/3 and gave her consent for medical examination vide Ex. P/4 and her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex. P/5. In her cross- examination, she admitted the defence's suggestion that she had filed a rape complaint against another person in 2018, which is still pending before the Court. She admitted this suggestion that she lodged an FIR after five days of the said incident.
She denied this suggestion that her husband had been continuously assaulting her since 13.04.2023 out of suspicion about her character. She admitted the defence's suggestion that she neither sought help from the school staff or taxi passengers nor disclosed the incident to anyone, including her husband, on the date it occurred.
9. PW-2, the husband of the prosecutrix, stated that his wife narrated the entire incident and he denied the defence's suggestion that he assaulted her and cut off her hair at home to make her look ugly, alleging it was to cast aspersions on her character. 6
10. PW-3, Dr. Sarvatha Pandey, examined the prosecutrix and found seven injuries on her left shoulder, arms or forearms, left knee, left leg, back side, right thigh and left eye. She opined that there were signs of struggle over the body and that forcible sexual intercourse cannot be denied, however, she further stated that final opinion to be given after F.S.L. examination report. She gave her report vide Ex. P/13.
11. The F.S.L. report (Ex. P/24) from F.S.L. Raipur confirmed the presence of spermatozoa on the sample.
12. Learned trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and finds that material contradictions and omissions in the prosecutrix's statement and rightly held it to be unreliable.
13. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ganesan vs. State Represented By Its Inspector of Police 4 in para 10.3 as under:-
10.3 Who can be said to be a "sterling witness", has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21. In paragraph 22, it is observed and held as under:
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of 4 (2020) 10 SCC 573 7 the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross−examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co−relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the 8 accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all 12 other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
14. Upon a careful examination of the statement and conduct of the prosecutrix, it is manifest that her testimony suffers from material contradictions and omissions, rendering it unreliable. In view of this, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused/respondent No. 2, as the prosecution has failed to establish its case against him beyond reasonable doubt.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 in the case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka5, has held in para 36 as under:-
5 (2024) 3 SCC 544 9 "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 must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial 10 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."
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
17. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
AMIT PATEL