Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Aditya Kumar Gupta on 12 February, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
AKHILESH
BEOHAR
Date: 2025.02.13
18:04:28 +0530
2025:CGHC:7523-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 22 of 2016
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station, Ramchandrapur,
District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
...Appellant
versus
• Aditya Kumar Gupta, S/o Ramdev Prasad Gupta, aged about 23
Years, R/o Belkurta P.S. Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur -
Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
12.02.2025
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the
judgment dated 06.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. in Sessions Trial
No.157/2013, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the
accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 376 of IPC on
the basis of benefit of doubt.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.10.2012 at about 1:00
pm, prosecutrix went to forest to collect wood, at that time,
respondent/accused came there, caught hold of her hands, pushed
her on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.
When prosecutrix started shouting, respondent/accused left her and
fled away from there. Thereafter, prosecutrix came to her home and
informed the incident to her relatives. After that, she went to Police
Station- Ramchandrapur and lodged written report (Ex.P-1) against
the respondent, pursuant to which, FIR (Ex.P-2) has been registered
against the respondent. During investigation, spot map was prepared
vide Ex.P-4. Consent letter (Ex.P-8) of prosecutrix was obtained and
she was sent for medical examination where Dr. S.T. (PW-15)
examined the victim and did not notice any sign of injury over the
person of the prosecutrix nor found any sign of recent sexual
intercourse and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-29. Vide Ex.P-9
clothes of prosecutrix were seized. Seized clothes were sent to FSL
for chemical examination, but no FSL report has been brought on
record.
3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent
before the concerned trial Court under Section 376 of IPC.
Accused/respondent abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as
many as 17 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 29
documents connecting the respondent/accused to the crime in
question. However, in his defence, respondent/accused has examined
none and not exhibited any document.
5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating
the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the
accused/respondent herein of said charge leveled against him.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court is
absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of
said charge by recording perverse findings. He further submits that
there is evidence available on record to show that on the date of
incident, respondent/accused committed forcible sexual intercourse
with the prosecutrix and despite that, the learned trial Court has
committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent without
appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective, thus the
impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality,
therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and perused the
material available on record.
8. 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."
9. Present case is based only on the evidence of PW-1 prosecutrix and a
bare perusal of the statement of prosecutrix would show that she
herself has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case as
she has stated that in her statement that respondent/accused did not
commit anything with her and further has nowhere made any
allegation against the respondent/accused. This apart, PW-2 father of
the prosecutrix, PW-3 mother of the prosecutrix, PW-4 grand-mother
of the prosecutrix and PW-10 grand-father of the prosecutrix have also
turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Besides, PW-
15 Dr. S.T who medically examined the prosecutrix did not notice any
sign of injury over the person of the prosecutrix either internally or
externally and also did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse.
10. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by
the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the
prosecution, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that
prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent and clinching
evidence which would show the complicity of the respondent/accused in
the crime in question and as such, acquitted accused/respondent of the
said charge leveled against him on the basis of benefit of doubt as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. After considering the material available on record as well as the
elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the
considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the
accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 376 of IPC, is
just and proper and does not call for any interference.
12. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the appellant/State against the
acquittal of the accused/respondent of the aforesaid offence is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Akhilesh
