Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:11791-DB
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
NAFR
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2026.03.13
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
15:34:25
+0530 ACQA No. 188 of 2022
• ABC
... Appellant/Victim
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Out Post Hardi Bazar, P.S.
Kusumunda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2. Bharat Singh Kanwar, Badhawan Singh Kanwar, aged about 28 Years,
R/o Pandripani, OP Hardi Bazar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari and Mr. Roshan Kunj,
Advocates.
For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
12/03/2026
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
Heard on admission.
1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the victim challenging the judgment dated 02.02.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Kathghora, District Korba, C.G., in Sessions Case No.45/2018, whereby respondent No.2/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') by extending the benefit of doubt.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13 & 15.02.2018, victim, aged about 27 years, lodged a written reports (Exs.P-6 & P-7) at Police Station 2 Korba, C.G., alleging that the accused/respondent No.2 had been establishing physical relations with her for several years on the promise of marriage. It was stated that the accused repeatedly assured her that he would marry her but later became engaged to another girl and refused to marry the victim. On the basis of the said report, FIR (Ex.P-1) 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-12 Dr. B.T. examined her and gave MLC report (Ex.P-3). Vide Ex.P-8, vaginal swab slides of the victim were seized. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Exs.P-15 & P-16), no human spermatozoa was found on the seized slides of the victim.
4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent 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 charge 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 3 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."
10. Case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the testimony of PW-1 (victim). Victim (PW-1) deposed that the accused/respondent No.2 was known to her as he used to reside in village Pandripani. According to her, since the year 2007, accused/respondent No.2 had been telling her that he would marry her and on that assurance, he established physical relations with her at her house as well as at his house. She stated that accused/respondent No.2 continued to establish physical relations with her from the year 2007 till 26.01.2018. She further stated that later she came to know that the accused/respondent No.2 had become engaged to another girl and when she asked him to marry her, he refused, after which, she lodged the report against him. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she was about 30 years of age and that the accused/respondent No.2 used to establish 4 physical relations with her two to three times in a month. However, she could not state the exact time or place when the accused/respondent No.2 had initially promised to marry her. It also appears from her evidence that while she stated before the Court that their relationship began in the year 2007, the FIR (Ex.P-1) mentions that the accused/respondent No.2 had been establishing relations with her for about four to five years prior to the lodging of the report, thereby creating a material contradiction in her version.
11. Thus, from perusal of the evidence of the victim, it is clear that she was a major and had been in a love relationship with the accused/respondent No.2 for a considerable period. The evidence on record also indicates that she was a consenting party to the alleged acts. Further, there is a material contradiction regarding the duration of their alleged relationship, as the version stated in her deposition does not tally with the contents of the FIR (Ex.P-1). Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the victim had made any complaint against the accused/respondent No.2 earlier or that she had disclosed the alleged acts to her parents or any other person. Apart from this, there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to establish that the accused/respondent No.2 established physical relations with the victim on the false promise of marriage. In such circumstances, the allegation that the accused/respondent No.2 established physical relations with the victim on the false pretext of marriage is not proved.
12. 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:-
"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 5 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."
13. 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.
14. 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