[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
X.Y.Z vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
Digitally
signed
by AMIT
PATEL
1
2026:CGHC:11301-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 236 of 2024
1 - X.Y.Z
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Police Station Jainagar, District
Surajpur (C.G.)
2 - Baleshwar Saonwani S/o Virjhuram Sonwani, Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Pachira, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause Title Taken From CIS System)
For Appellant : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate
For State : Mr. Narayan Prasad, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 2 : None present, though served
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
Judgment on Board
Per, Rajani Dubey, J.
10.03.2026
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment dated 16.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge (F.T.C.), Special Court, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in
Sessions Trial No. 56/2023, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted
the respondent/accused of offence under Sections 376, 323 and 506-B
of I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.04.2023, the prosecutrix lodged a
written report (Ex. P/1) against the accused at Police Station Jainagar
alleging that on 13.04.2023 she was standing at Bishrampur Bus Stand
to pick up her son from Central School, Ambikapur. At that time, the
accused/her uncle-in-law, came in his Bolero car, asked her to sit in
the vehicle on the pretext that he was going to Ambikapur and at about
12:30 PM took her to the Silfili Baramil forest, where he started
expressing his love and desire for her, when she protested, he
assaulted her on the back with a stick and committed forcible sexual
intercourse by laying her in the middle seat of his car and introduced
fear to her by cutting her hair with scissors. On the written report (Ex.
P/1) of the prosecutrix, Police Station- Jainagar registered an F.I.R.
(Ex. P/2) against the accused for offence under Sections 376(1), 323
and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, on 18.04.2023, the accused was arrested
and after completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet
was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn,
committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in
the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent
No.2 of offence under Sections 376, 323 and 506-B of IPC., against
which the present appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that the learned
trial Court passed the impugned judgment without appreciating the
material available on record. Learned trial Court has given grandness
to minor contradictions and omissions and passed the impugned
judgment which is bad in law and liable to be dismissed. The
complainant/prosecutrix, examined as PW-1, deposed that the
respondent No. 2/accused committed the alleged offence forcibly
against her will, assaulted her, and threatened her with dire
consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. This material
testimony of the prosecutrix has not been rebutted. It is a well-settled
proposition of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony
of the prosecutrix. The statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated by
the medical evidence of Dr. Sarvatha Pandey, who found signs of
forcible sexual intercourse and noted seven injuries, including a
contusion on the thigh, thereby supporting the prosecution case. PW-2,
the prosecutrix's husband has supported the prosecution case and
explained the delay in lodging the FIR and other witnesses have also
supported the prosecution. It is further submitted that the learned trial
Court acquitted respondent No. 2 on the ground that the prosecutrix
was a consenting party, whereas in her deposition she clearly stated
that the offence was committed against her will. Hence, in light of
Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned
trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. In support of her
contention, she has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matters of Phool Singh vs. State of M.P.1, State (NCT of
Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary and others 2 & Deepak vs. State of
Haryana3.
1 (2022) 2 SCC 74
2 (2019) 11 SCC 575
3 (2015) 4 SCC 762
4. Learned counsel for the State supporting the argument of counsel for
the appellant/complainant submits that the learned trial Court has
passed the impugned order in a cryptic and laconic manner without
appreciating the material available on record and the accused/
respondent No. 2 is liable to be convicted for the said offences. The
impugned judgment, finding and order of acquittal passed by the
learned trial Court is illegal, improper,incorrect and is liable to be set
aside.
5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2/accused, despite
service of notice upon him.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed
charges against the accused/respondent No.2 for offence under
Sections 376, 323 and 506-B of IPC and after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court
acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges.
8. PW-1, the prosecutrix has stated that on 13.04.2023, she was going to
Central School, Ambikapur to pick up her son by Jeep (taxi), she
boarded a taxi from Village Pachira, but the driver dropped her in the
midway at Bishrampur, stating there were no other passengers and
advised her to use another mode of transport to reach Ambikapur. She
then went to Bishrampur bus stand to buy fruit, but could not. The
accused- Baleshwar Soni, her uncle-in-law arrived in a Bolero car and
asked her as to where she was going, to which she replied she was
going to Ambikapur to pick up her son. The accused asked her to get
into his car, stating that he was also going to Ambikapur and he would
drop her. She initially refused, but he insisted and then she agreed. He
then drove to Silfili forest between Ambikapur, closed the car doors and
when she asked where he was going, he told her to "shut up." The
accused started expressing his love and desire for her, when she
protested, the accused assaulted her with a stick as a result of which,
blood was oozing from her head and she became unconscious and
committed forcible sexual intercourse by laying her in the middle seat
of the car and cutting her hair with scissors. Then, she filed a written
complaint vide Ex. P/1, lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station- Jainagar
vide Ex. P/2, spot map was prepared by police vide Ex.P/3 and gave
her consent for medical examination vide Ex. P/4 and her statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex. P/5. In her cross-
examination, she admitted the defence's suggestion that she had filed
a rape complaint against another person in 2018, which is still pending
before the Court. She admitted this suggestion that she lodged an FIR
after five days of the said incident.
She denied this suggestion that her husband had been
continuously assaulting her since 13.04.2023 out of suspicion about
her character. She admitted the defence's suggestion that she neither
sought help from the school staff or taxi passengers nor disclosed the
incident to anyone, including her husband, on the date it occurred.
9. PW-2, the husband of the prosecutrix, stated that his wife narrated the
entire incident and he denied the defence's suggestion that he
assaulted her and cut off her hair at home to make her look ugly,
alleging it was to cast aspersions on her character.
10. PW-3, Dr. Sarvatha Pandey, examined the prosecutrix and found seven
injuries on her left shoulder, arms or forearms, left knee, left leg, back
side, right thigh and left eye. She opined that there were signs of
struggle over the body and that forcible sexual intercourse cannot be
denied, however, she further stated that final opinion to be given after
F.S.L. examination report. She gave her report vide Ex. P/13.
11. The F.S.L. report (Ex. P/24) from F.S.L. Raipur confirmed the presence
of spermatozoa on the sample.
12. Learned trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and finds that material
contradictions and omissions in the prosecutrix's statement and rightly
held it to be unreliable.
13. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ganesan vs.
State Represented By Its Inspector of Police 4 in para 10.3 as
under:-
10.3 Who can be said to be a "sterling witness", has been dealt
with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21. In paragraph 22, it is
observed and held as under:
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling
witness" should be of a very high quality and
calibre whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the version
of such witness should be in a position to accept
it for its face value without any hesitation. To
test the quality of such a witness, the status of
4 (2020) 10 SCC 573
the witness would be immaterial and what would
be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement
made by such a witness. What would be more
relevant would be the consistency of the
statement right from the starting point till the
end, namely, at the time when the witness makes
the initial statement and ultimately before the
court. It should be natural and consistent with
the case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the
version of such a witness. The witness should
be in a position to withstand the
cross−examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under no circumstance
should give room for any doubt as to the factum
of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well
as the sequence of it. Such a version should
have co−relation with each and every one of
other supporting material such as the recoveries
made, the weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the expert
opinion. The said version should consistently
match with the version of every other witness. It
can even be stated that it should be akin to the
test applied in the case of circumstantial
evidence where there should not be any missing
link in the chain of circumstances to hold the
accused guilty of the offence alleged against
him. Only if the version of such a witness
qualifies the above test as well as all 12 other
such similar tests to be applied, can it be held
that such a witness can be called as a "sterling
witness" whose version can be accepted by the
court without any corroboration and based on
which the guilty can be punished. To be more
precise, the version of the said witness on the
core spectrum of the crime should remain intact
while all other attendant materials, namely, oral,
documentary and material objects should match
the said version in material particulars in order
to enable the court trying the offence to rely on
the core version to sieve the other supporting
materials for holding the offender guilty of the
charge alleged."
14. Upon a careful examination of the statement and conduct of the
prosecutrix, it is manifest that her testimony suffers from material
contradictions and omissions, rendering it unreliable. In view of this,
the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused/respondent No. 2,
as the prosecution has failed to establish its case against him beyond
reasonable doubt.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 in the case
of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka5, has held in para
36 as under:-
5 (2024) 3 SCC 544
"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 must 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."
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view
which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible
and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or
perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
17. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
AMIT PATEL
