[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally 2026:CGHC:14188-DB
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR NAFR
BEOHAR Date:
2026.03.25
17:04:34
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 378 of 2025
• XYZ
...Appellant/Victim
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Bemetara,
Distt. - Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
2. Bhanu Pratap Sahu, S/o Shri Anjor Singh Sahu, aged about 36
Years, R/o Shyampurkanpa, P.S. - Thankhamhariya, Distt. -
Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
25.03.2026
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
Heard on admission.
1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/Victim arises out of the
judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed by the First Additional Sessions
Judge (F.T.C.), Bemetara, C.G., in Sessions Trial (FTC) No.27/2024,
whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent
No.2 of the charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 294 and 506 Part II of
Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC").
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.04.2024, victim, aged
about 30 years, lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station
Thankhamhariya alleging that the accused/respondent No.2 had
been repeatedly establishing physical relations with her for about
eight years against her will by extending threats. According to her,
the first incident occurred when she was going to work in the
accused's field, where he allegedly committed rape upon her near a
cremation ground, and thereafter continued such acts at different
places by threatening her to life. She further alleged that in March
2024, accused/respondent No.2 again committed rape upon her in
the early morning. Due to fear, she did not disclose the incidents for
a long time and finally informed her husband on 25.04.2024. On the
basis of the said written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered
against the accused/respondent No.2.
3. During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent of the
victim, she was sent for medical examination. PW-4 Dr. P.S.
examined her and did not find any external or internal injuries on her
person and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-8. Vaginal slides and
undergarment of victim were seized vide Exs.P-4 & P-20
respectively. Undergarment of the accused was also seized vide
Ex.P-21. All the seized articles were sent to the FSL for chemical
examination and the FSL report (Ex.P-25) has been brought on
record.
4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent
No.2 before the concerned trial Court. 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 charge 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 by
recording perverse findings. It is further submitted that there is
evidence on record, particularly the testimony of PW-1 (victim), to
establish that the accused/respondent No.2 forcibly established
physical relations with her on several occasions and also threatened
her to life. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence,
the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the
accused. Therefore, 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. Case of the prosecution mainly rests on the testimony of the victim
(PW-1), who stated that the accused/respondent No.2 first committed
rape upon her about eight years prior to lodging of the report and
thereafter continued to have physical relations with her on several
occasions, including an incident in March 2024. However, on careful
examination of her evidence, it is evident that she could not provide
specific details such as dates, months or years of the alleged
incidents over the long period of eight to nine years. She also
admitted that despite the alleged repeated acts by the
accused/respondent No.2, she did not make any complaint to any
authority during this entire period. Although she stated that she
remained silent due to threats extended by the accused, but there is
no evidence on record to show that the accused/respondent No.2
was in such a position as to prevent her from reporting the matter for
such a long period. Her conduct further indicates that she continued
to work in the fields and remained in contact with the
accused/respondent No.2. Further, PW-7 (husband of the victim)
stated that the victim disclosed the matter to him just before lodging
the report, which indicates that she disclosed it when there was a
likelihood of their relationship coming to light. He further admitted that
when he was asked whether the victim and the accused had relations
for the last eight to ten years, he stated that according to what the
victim had informed him, such relationship had been continuing for a
long time. He further admitted that he had informed his brother-in-law
over telephone that the victim was having relations with another
person. He also admitted that at the instance of the victim, the
accused had purchased and given her a new mobile phone. These
admissions made by PW-7 husband of the victim also create doubt
regarding the prosecution case. This apart, there is also a
considerable delay in lodging the FIR (Ex.P-2), both in respect of the
long period of alleged incidents and even the last incident, and the
explanation for such delay does not appear to be satisfactory.
11. From the above evidence, it appears that the victim was a
consenting party with regard to the alleged acts and also remained in
continuous contact with the accused/respondent No.2 and that was
the reason as to why she has not lodged the report against the
respondent No.2. The learned trial Court, after an elaborate
discussion and proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record,
has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt against accused/respondent No.2 and accordingly,
acquitted him of the charges leveled against him.
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 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.
14. 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
