[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Phool Kumar Nag on 22 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18262-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1129 of 2026
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhanpuri District- Bastar
(C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
Phool Kumar Nag S/o Late Rajman Nag R/o Village Madhota
Khairgudapara Police Station - Bhanpuri District- Bastar (C.G.)
... Respondent
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.23
11:07:15
+0530
For Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
22.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for
the petitioner/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for
condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the instant petition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State and
considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the
considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the
application and accordingly, I.A. No.01 is allowed and delay of 45 days
in filing the instant petition is condoned.
3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case
(POCSO) No.60/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC,
Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.), whereby the learned Sessions
Judge has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence
punishable under Sections 376(3), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short, 'IPC') as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act') holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The brief gist of the prosecution case is that on 25.10.2023, the
victim (PW-1) lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) at Police Station,
Bhanpuri, stating that in the year 2019, when she was studying in Class
10th, she was a minor. During that period, the accused Phool Kumar
Nag, who resided in front of her house in the same village, expressed
his desire to marry her by stating that he liked her. The victim (PW-1),
however, declined, stating that she was still young and pursuing her
studies.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter, the accused
persistently followed and harassed the victim (PW-1), and in February
2019, he took her to bushes situated behind the primary school and
committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will on the pretext of
love and promise of marriage. When the victim (PW-1) resisted and
threatened to disclose the incident to her family members, the accused
allegedly threatened to kill her. Owing to such threats and fear, she did
not disclose the incident to anyone.
6. It is further alleged that thereafter, the accused continued to
establish physical relations with the victim (PW-1) against her will on
several occasions. In March 2023, the victim came to know that she had
become pregnant. Upon informing the accused, he assured her that he
would marry her shortly. However, when the pregnancy advanced and
the victim disclosed the incident to her family members, they
approached the accused for marriage, but he absconded without
informing anyone.
7. On the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P/1), a First Information
Report (Ex.P/2) was registered against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
and the matter was taken up for investigation.
8. During the course of investigation, the Class 10th mark-sheet of
the victim (Article A/1) was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/5) in
presence of witnesses. A knife allegedly used in the incident was seized
vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6). The guardianship certificate (Ex.P/10) was
obtained from the father of the victim (PW-3) to establish her date of
birth. On the basis of the memorandum of the victim (PW-1), a spot map
(Ex.P/3) was prepared. Thereafter, Patwari Nitish Dewangan (PW-4)
prepared a Panchnama (Ex.P/11) and a Patwari site map (Ex.P/12),
which were forwarded to the Tehsildar, Bastar through Tahrir (Ex.P/13).
The victim (PW-1) was medically examined at CHC, Bhanpuri after
obtaining her consent (Ex.P/4) and that of her mother (PW-2) (Ex.P/8).
The medical examination report (Ex.P/18), detailed medical report
(Ex.P/19) and sonography report (Ex.P/14) were obtained. The vaginal
smears and swabs collected during examination were seized vide
seizure memo (Ex.P/16). Consent for DNA examination was obtained
(Ex.P/7), and DNA profiling was conducted. The accused was arrested
vide arrest memo (Ex.P/9), and information regarding his arrest was
recorded (Ex.P/20). The accused was also medically examined, and his
medical report (Ex.P/15) was obtained. On 10.11.2023, the seized
articles, namely Exhibit-A (vaginal smears) and Exhibit-B (vaginal
swabs), were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,
Jagdalpur through Tahrir (Ex.P/21). The receipt thereof is Ex.P/22 and
the chemical examination report is Ex.P/23. During investigation,
statements of the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and her father (PW-
3) were recorded (Ex.D/1, Ex.D/3 and Ex.D/4 respectively).
9. After completion of investigation and upon finding sufficient
incriminating material, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for
offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC
and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 before the Court of concerned jurisdictional Criminal Court
and thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial
and disposal in accordance with law.
10. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused
persons under the aforesaid provisions. The accused abjured guilt and
claimed to be tried. Their statements were recorded, wherein they
denied the prosecution allegations. In order to bring home the offences,
the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited
39 documents.
11. After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court
did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused,
and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences
charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2025, hence,
the present CrMP has been filed seeking leave to appeal.
12. Learned State counsel, assailing the impugned judgment of
acquittal, submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by
the learned Trial Court is manifestly illegal, perverse and contrary to the
evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Trial Court
has erred in discarding the cogent and reliable testimony of the victim
(PW-1), who has consistently and categorically deposed that the
respondent/accused established physical relations with her against her
will on the false promise of marriage and under threat to her life. It is
further submitted that her testimony is duly corroborated by the
statements of her family members (PW-2 and PW-3) as well as
documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P/5 (mark-sheet) and Ex.P/10
(guardianship certificate), which clearly establish that the victim was a
minor aged about 15 years at the time of the first incident, thereby
attracting the rigours of the provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act. It
is further argued that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
settled legal position that the sole testimony of the victim, if found
reliable, is sufficient to sustain conviction and does not require
corroboration. Even otherwise, in the present case, the prosecution
evidence stands corroborated by medical and scientific evidence,
including Ex.P/14 (sonography report) and the FSL report (Ex.P/23).
Learned State counsel further submits that the question of consent is
wholly immaterial in view of the age of the victim being below 18 years
and, in any case, the alleged consent was vitiated by misconception of
fact and threat extended by the accused. It is thus urged that the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are unsustainable in law
and deserve to be set aside, and the respondent/accused is liable to be
convicted for the offences charged.
13. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of
the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal.
14. After appreciating the submissions advanced by both the parties
and upon a thorough reappraisal of the entire material available on
record, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the
accused/respondent, has elaborately held that the prosecution has
failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has
primarily observed that although the victim (PW-1) has alleged repeated
sexual relations on the promise of marriage and threat, the evidence
brought on record suffers from material contradictions, omissions and
improvements, thereby rendering her testimony unreliable and not of
such sterling quality so as to base conviction solely upon it.
15. The learned trial Court has further recorded a finding that the
prosecution case rests substantially on the testimony of the victim;
however, her evidence is not consistent on material particulars,
particularly with regard to her age at the time of the alleged first
incident, the manner of occurrence and the surrounding circumstances.
The Court has taken note of the fact that the victim has made
contradictory statements regarding her age, at one stage stating herself
to be major and at another stage claiming to be minor, thereby creating
serious doubt about the applicability of the provisions of the POCSO
Act.
16. It has also been observed that there is an inordinate and
unexplained delay of about four years in lodging the FIR, and the
explanation offered by the prosecution does not inspire confidence in
the facts of the present case, especially in light of the admissions made
by the victim during cross-examination. The trial Court has further noted
that there are material discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence
as reflected in the site map (Ex.P/3) and the Patwari map (Ex.P/12),
which casts doubt on the prosecution version.
17. The learned trial Court has further taken into consideration that
the medical and scientific evidence does not conclusively support the
prosecution case. Though the victim was found pregnant at the time of
medical examination, no DNA report was produced to establish that the
accused was the biological father of the child. The FSL report also did
not detect the presence of spermatozoa in the seized samples.
Moreover, the alleged recovery of the knife has not been substantiated
by the testimony of the victim herself.
18. Upon cumulative consideration, the trial Court has also found that
the conduct of the victim, including her admissions regarding continued
interaction with the accused, meeting him at different places and the
circumstances leading to lodging of the report only after pregnancy was
detected, probabilises the defence version that the relationship was
consensual. The Court has further observed that the prosecution has
failed to establish that the alleged consent, if any, was obtained under
misconception of fact or fear so as to attract the provisions of law.
19. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence, the learned Sessions
Judge has concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the
accused committed rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon
the victim when she was a minor, or that he criminally intimidated her as
alleged. The chain of circumstances and evidence led by the
prosecution is found to be incomplete and not sufficient to bring home
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
20. In view of the aforesaid detailed findings recorded by the learned
trial Court, it is evident that the conclusions arrived at are based on
proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence. The findings cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or
contrary to the material available on record so as to warrant interference
by this Court.
21. Accordingly, this Court, upon independent reappraisal of the entire
evidence and record, does not find any substantial or compelling reason
to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned trial Court.
22. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in
an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:-
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is
found that the view taken by the Court is
impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to
interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally
if two views are possible, it is not permissible
to set aside an order of acquittal, merely
because the Appellate Court finds the way of
conviction to be more probable. The
interference would be warranted only if the
view taken is not possible at all."
23. Thus, for the foregoing reasons and in view of the detailed
discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave
to appeal against the judgment of acquittal does not disclose any
substantial or compelling ground warranting interference. The findings
recorded by the learned trial Court, particularly with regard to the
material contradictions in the testimony of the victim (PW-1), the serious
doubt arising about her age at the time of the alleged first incident, the
unexplained delay of about four years in lodging the FIR, the
inconsistencies regarding the place of occurrence, and the absence of
conclusive medical and scientific evidence including non-production of
DNA report, are based on proper appreciation of evidence. No
perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been demonstrated so as
to persuade this Court to take a different view. It is well settled that
unless the conclusions drawn by the trial Court are manifestly
erroneous or wholly unsustainable, interference with an order of
acquittal is not warranted.
24. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to point out any
such infirmity in the impugned judgment which would justify reappraisal
of the evidence so as to reverse the acquittal. The trial Court has rightly
taken into consideration the admissions of the victim in her cross-
examination regarding her continued interaction with the accused, the
circumstances under which the report came to be lodged only after
detection of pregnancy, and the lack of credible proof that the alleged
consent, if any, was obtained under fear or misconception of fact. The
view taken by the learned trial Court, therefore, is a plausible and
reasonable view based on the material available on record, and merely
because another view is possible, the same cannot be a ground to grant
leave to appeal.
25. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to
appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
