[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ramkumar Patre on 25 February, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:9780-DB
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH NAFR
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date:
2026.02.26
14:29:52
+0530
ACQA No. 27 of 2020
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Kota, District -
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant
versus
1. Ramkumar Patre, S/o Babulal Patre, aged about 35 Years,
2. Smt. Godavari Patre, W/o Ramkumar Patre, aged about 30 Years,
All are R/o Village Bhunda, Police Station Kota, District - Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Deputy
Government Advocate.
For Respondents : None, though served.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
25.02.2026
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the
judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T.C.), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Case No. 93/2017,
whereby the learned trial Court acquitted accused/respondent No. 1-
Ramkumar Patre of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and
506 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and Section 67-A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, "IT Act, 2000") and
respondent No. 2- Godavari Patre of the offences punishable under
Section 376-D of IPC and Section 67-A of IT Act, 2000.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prosecutrix, aged about 27
years, was acquainted with accused/respondent No.1- Ramkumar
Patre and his wife/respondent No.2- Godavari Patre and used to visit
their house. It is alleged that about six months prior to lodging of the
FIR (Ex.P-3) dated 19.05.2017, she was called to their house,
administered an intoxicant in a cold drink, and thereafter accused-
Ramkumar committed sexual intercourse with her and prepared an
obscene video. It is further alleged that by threatening to circulate the
said video, he continued to have sexual relations with her for about six
months. When her marriage was arranged, accused- Ramkumar
allegedly told her future husband about his alleged relationship with
her, because of which, the engagement was cancelled. On these
allegations, the report was lodged against the accused persons.
3. During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent of
prosecutrix and her father, she was sent for medical examination,
whereupon PW-1 Dr. R.S. examined her and did not notice any injury
on the person of the prosecutrix either internally or externally and gave
MLC report vide Ex.P-1. Vide Ex.P-8, vaginal slide of the prosecutrix
was seized. Vide Ex.P-9, a Samsung mobile phone belonging to
accused- Ramkumar was seized. The accused persons were taken into
custody. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) for chemical examination, however, no FSL report
has been brought on record.
4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused
persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. Accused
persons/respondents abjured their 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 of charges leveled against him.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial
Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondents of the aforesaid
charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that
sufficient evidence is available on record, particularly the testimony of
PW-2 (prosecutrix), which clearly establishes that the accused
persons/respondents are the perpetrators of the offence in question.
Consequently, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from
perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant 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. The question that arises for consideration is whether the
respondents/accused persons are the perpetrators of the offence in
question.
10. Case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the testimony of the
prosecutrix. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that she knew the
accused persons and used to frequently visit their house. About six to
seven months before lodging the report, she went to their house on
being called by accused- Godavari. After consuming a cold drink given
there, she became unconscious and on regaining consciousness the
next morning, found herself without clothes. She stated that the accused
persons threatened her by saying that they had prepared an obscene
video of her and would circulate it if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
According to her, under such threat, accused- Ramkumar continued to
have sexual intercourse with her for about six months. She also stated
that when her marriage was arranged, accused- Ramkumar informed the
prospective groom about his alleged relationship with her, resulting in
cancellation of the engagement. However, on the contrary, in cross-
examination, she admitted that she had known the family of the accused
persons since 2015 and was on cordial terms with them and frequent
visiting terms with them. She admitted that she voluntarily went to their
house and that accused- Ramkumar used to visit her house when her
mother was ill. She also admitted that during the alleged first incident,
she was unconscious and therefore had no knowledge of what actually
happened. She also admitted that she did not raise any alarm nor did
she immediately inform her family members and continued to visit the
house of the accused persons thereafter. She also admitted that no
independent witness was present at the time of the alleged threats, she
had not personally seen the alleged video being circulated and that no
electronic record such as WhatsApp message was produced. She also
admitted that she was not present when accused- Ramkumar allegedly
spoke to the prospective groom and that she came to know of it from
others.
11. From the evidence of the prosecutrix, it clearly emerges that she had a
long-standing and cordial relationship with the family of the accused
persons and that she used to visit their house voluntarily. She also
admitted that at the time of the alleged first incident, she was
unconscious and, therefore, had no direct knowledge of what had
actually occurred. There is no medical evidence to show that any
intoxicant was administered to her or that she was subjected to recent
forcible intercourse. No independent witness has supported the
allegation of threats. Further, the FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged after a
considerable delay, although the allegation is of repeated intercourse
over a period of six months, and no complaint was made during that
time. She also admitted that she neither raised any alarm nor informed
her family members about the alleged incident. The Investigating Officer
(PW-11 Ashok Kumar Sharma) stated that a Samsung mobile phone was
seized from accused- Ramkumar vide Ex.P-9. However, the independent
seizure witness (PW-5 Arman Khan) did not support this version and
stated that no seizure was made in his presence. The other seizure
witness, namely, Suresh Yadav, was not examined by the prosecution.
Moreover, CD (Article A-1) produced before the Court was not viewable
and the alleged electronic evidence was not proved in accordance with
law. Therefore, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot
be held that the accused persons/respondents are the perpetrators of
the offence in question.
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 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/State against the
acquittal of accused/respondent is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Akhilesh
