[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dhaneshwari Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:11164-DB
AKHILESH
BEOHAR NAFR
Digitally signed by
AKHILESH BEOHAR
Date: 2026.03.10 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
17:37:36 +0530
ACQA No. 782 of 2019
• XYZ
... Appellant/Victim
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Adim Jati
Kalyan Thana, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
2. Gangadhar Bairagi @ Baijnath, S/o Gurudev Bairagi, aged about 27
Years, Occupation - Cultivator and Student, R/o Village - Tora, Police
Station - Sariya District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
09/03/2026
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
Heard on admission.
1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the victim challenging the
judgment dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge under
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), in Special Case (Atrocities Act)
No.30/2018, whereby respondent No.2/accused has been acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k)(n) and 493 of Indian Penal
Code (in short, 'IPC') and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short, 'the Act, 1989') by extending the benefit of doubt.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.05.2018, victim, aged about
28 years and belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, lodged a written
complaint (Ex.P-1) at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh stating that while
pursuing her B.Ed. course at IASE College, Bilaspur during the academic
session 2015-2017, she came in contact with respondent No.2/accused-
Gangadhar Bairagi during a college programme in January, 2016 and their
acquaintance gradually developed into a love relationship. According to
the prosecution, on 22.03.2017, accused/respondent No.2 took the victim
to the house of his brother at Ram Bhatha, Raigarh and on the assurance
of marriage, established physical relations with her and thereafter
continued such relations on several occasions on the same pretext. Later,
when the victim insisted upon marriage, the accused refused and his
family members also declined the proposal on the ground of inter-caste
difference. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Exs.P-10 &
P-13) 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-2 Dr. D.A.
examined her and did not find any injury on her person nor any sign of
forcible sexual intercourse and gave MLC report (Ex.P-6). Vide Ex.P-3,
caste certificate of the victim was seized. Thereafter, the
accused/respondent No.2 was taken into custody vide Ex.P-10.
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 charges 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
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. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the testimony of PW-1
(victim). She deposed that she came in contact with accused/respondent
No.2 in January, 2016 during a college programme and thereafter they
started communicating regularly through mobile phone and WhatsApp and
gradually their relationship became close. According to her, on 22.03.2017,
the accused/respondent No.2 took her to the house of his brother at Ram
Bhatha, Raigarh, where he established physical relations with her. She
further stated that thereafter the accused/respondent No.2 continued to
establish physical relations with her and whenever she insisted upon
marriage, the accused assured her that he would marry her after
completion of his studies. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted
that she had come to Bilaspur in September, 2015 to pursue the B.Ed.
course and became acquainted with the accused/respondent No.2 in
January, 2016. She further admitted that they used to chat frequently on
WhatsApp and that their relationship became close in February, 2016, and
from June, 2016 they were in a love relationship and used to meet
frequently. She also admitted that after the alleged first incident dated
22.03.2017, she neither raised any alarm nor made any complaint to
anyone and returned to the girls' hostel at Bilaspur the same evening
without informing the hostel warden, her roommates or any other person
about the alleged incident. She also admitted that even thereafter she
continued to meet the accused/respondent No.2 and established physical
relations with him on several occasions, including at the house of a friend
of the accused and once at a hotel, and that she used to travel with the
accused/respondent No.2 to Raigarh and maintained the relationship for a
considerable period.
11. Apart from this, Dr. D.A. (PW-2), who conducted the medical examination
of the victim, did not give any definite opinion regarding forcible sexual
intercourse with the victim. PW-2 deposed that the victim had informed her
that she had been in a relationship with the accused/respondent No.2 and
that there had been no physical relations between them during the last
eleven months. Further, father (PW-3) and mother (PW-5) of the victim
deposed that they came to know about the relationship between the victim
and the accused only after receiving information from Sakhi Centre,
Raigarh. According to them, prior to that the victim had not disclosed
anything about the alleged incident to them.
12. Thus, from the perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that the victim
was a major and had been in a love relationship with the
accused/respondent No.2 for a considerable period, and that she was a
consenting party to the alleged acts. Her own testimony shows that even
after the alleged first incident, she continued to meet the accused and
maintained physical relations with him on several occasions. She neither
raised any alarm nor disclosed the alleged incident to anyone. It is also
evident that she travelled and stayed with the accused/respondent No.2 at
different places on her own free will. In such circumstances, the allegations
of forcible physical relations on the false pretext of marriage are not
established against the accused/respondent No.2 and it is also not proved
that the alleged act was committed on the ground that the victim belongs to
a Scheduled Caste community.
13. 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."
14. 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.
15. 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
