[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz vs Kanhaiya Kenwat on 20 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:13391-DB
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
NAFR
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2026.03.23
15:01:40 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
+0530
ACQA No. 120 of 2024
• XYZ
...Appellant/Victim
versus
1. Kanhaiya Kenwat, Son of Maniram, aged about 24 Years, Resident of
Village Kansa, Police Station Dabhara, Dist. Sakti, C.G.
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Dabhara, Dist. Sakti, C.G.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Anupam Upadhyay, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : None.
For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Narayan Prasad, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
20.03.2026
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the Appellant/Victim arises out of the
judgment dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T.S.C.), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. in Sessions Case
No.18/2023, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the
accused/respondent No.1 of the charges under Sections 450 & 376(2)
(n) of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") on the basis of benefit of
doubt.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.12.2022, victim, aged
about 22 years, lodged a written complaint (Ex.P-1) at Police Station
Dabhra stating that respondent No.1 had been acquainted with her
since 2019. It is alleged that on 28.12.2019, when she was alone at her
house, accused/respondent No.1 established physical relations with
her on the promise of marriage and, despite her objection, continued
such relations on several occasions on the same assurance. It is
further alleged that when the victim went to Tirupur, Tamil Nadu for
work, the accused stayed with her and continued the relationship, but
ultimately refused to marry her. On the basis of the written report
(Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against respondent No.1.
3. During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent of the
victim, she was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-7
Dr. H.B. examined her and did not find any internal or external injuries
over the person of the victim and gave MLC report (Ex.P-4).
Accused/respondent No.1 was taken into custody vide Ex.P-11. His
underwear was seized vide Ex.P-10, and the vaginal slides and
underwear of the victim were seized vide Ex.P-15. Seized articles were
sent to FSL for chemical examination, and as per FSL report (Ex.P-24),
no seminal stains or human spermatozoa were found.
4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent
No.1 before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondent No.1
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.1 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.1 of the
aforesaid charges by recording perverse findings. It is further submitted
that sufficient evidence is available on record, particularly the testimony
of PW-1 (victim), to establish that accused/respondent No.1, on the
false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her on
several occasions and subsequently refused to marry her. It is,
therefore, contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers
from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/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 prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of the victim
(PW-1). She stated in her deposition that in the year 2019, when she
was alone at her house during daytime, respondent No.1 came there
and, on her objection, assured her that he would marry her, whereafter
physical relations were established. She further stated that thereafter,
whenever she remained alone, the accused used to come and
establish physical relations with her repeatedly. She also deposed that
later she went to Tirupur, Tamil Nadu for stitching work, where she lived
in a rented room, and during that time also, respondent No.1 came
there, stayed with her and the relationship continued and thereafter,
accused returned to Bina, U.P., where his father was working, and from
there, he would come occasionally and establish physical relations with
her. According to her, when respondent No.1 later stopped visiting, she
herself went to Bina, U.P. to meet him, where his mother objected to
their marriage and turned her out of the house. Thereafter, she and the
accused boarded a train for Tirupur, but on receiving a call from family
members, they returned to Chhattisgarh. She further stated that when
she again asked respondent No.1 to marry her, he refused, whereupon
she lodged the written complaint (Ex.P-1). In cross-examination, she
admitted that from 2019 till December 2022, she had not disclosed the
alleged relationship to her family or society. She further admitted that
the accused was her relative and was related to her as her maternal
aunt (mausi) and that she was aware of this relationship during the
entire period. She also admitted that she used to send messages and
obscene photographs to the accused through Instagram and that both
of them liked each other and intended to marry. She also admitted that
she had gone to Delhi on her own free will to meet the accused and
that during the entire period, she did not make any complaint against
him to anyone.
10. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it emerges that there
was a love affair between the victim and the accused/respondent No.1
and that the victim was a consenting party to the alleged acts. The
record further reflects that she voluntarily travelled and stayed with the
accused/respondent No.1 at different places on her own free will, without
offering any resistance or raising any alarm or complaint at any point of
time. It has also come on record that the victim was fully aware that the
accused/respondent No.1 was her relative, yet she continued the
relationship. These circumstances do not support the allegation of
forcible acts against the accused/respondent No.1. The learned trial
Court, after elaborate discussion and proper appreciation of the
evidence on record, has concluded that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted the
accused/respondent No.1 of the charges by extending the benefit of
doubt.
11. 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."
12. 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 is a plausible and reasonable
view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court finds
no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed
by the learned trial Court.
13. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/victim against
the acquittal of accused/respondent No.1 is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Akhilesh
