REDACTED vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010254892026 2026:CGHC:46625-DB

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 134 of 2026
Judgment Reserved On : 14/10/2026
Judgment Delivered On : 4/11/2026
Xyz
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station-Champa, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
2 - Rameshwar Sahu Son Of Late Malikram Sahu, Aged About 22 Years
Resident Of Jagdalla Ward No.27, Police Station -Champa, District -
Janjgir-Champ (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Resham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate.
For Respondent/
State
: Miss Palak Dwivedi, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas &
Hon'ble Shri Sudhir Kumar, JJ

C A V Judgment
Per Sudhir Kumar, J.
Digitally
signed by
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE
Date:
2026.11.05
11:59:45
+0530
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE

2
th
1. This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8
April, 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC),
Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in ST No.04/2026 wherein the said
Court has acquitted the respondent No.2/Accused (henceforth ‘the
respondent/accused’) of the charges under Sections 64 (2)(M) and
351 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS’).
2. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant/victim is a widow
lady whose husband has died in 2020. In the year 2021, when she
came to Champa in connection with her children's examinations,
she came into contact with the respondent/accused in connection
with boring work on land purchased by her deceased husband.
During their subsequent interactions and telephone conversations,
they developed intimacy. It is alleged that the accused repeatedly
assured her that he would marry her and, on 11.06.2022, after
bringing her to his rented accommodation at Sindhi Colony,
Champa, established physical relations with her against her wishes
on the pretext of marriage. He allegedly continued to have physical
relations with her on the promise of marriage. She further alleged
that she became pregnant and underwent an abortion after taking
tablets under his pressure. When she repeatedly asked him to marry
her, he used to avoid her, assaulted her, threatened to kill her, and
ultimately refused to marry her. Consequently, the FIR was lodged
on 13.11.2025. After investigation charge sheet was filed and after

3
completion of trial, the trial Court has acquitted the
respondent/accused as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has
not properly appreciated the evidence of the victim (P.W.-1), who
has categorically deposed that on the pretext of marriage, the
respondent/accused has committed rape with her on several
occasions and thereby he sexually exploited her. The victim had
been firmed in her statement against the respondent/accused and she
has fully supported the prosecution case, even then the trial Court
has disbelieved the version of the victim. The finding of the trial
Court that the victim is a consenting party has been recorded
without any reasonable ground. The victim has supported the
prosecution case and there is no legal reason to disbelieve the
testimony of the victim. For the sake of arguments, even if it is
accepted that the victim was a consenting party, even then the said
consent was obtained by the respondent/accused by way of
emotional blackmail and on the basis of false assurances of
marriage, therefore, it cannot be said that the consent given by the
victim was out of her free will and without any pressure, fear or
protest. The trial Court has also not appreciated that since the
respondent/accused has obtained consent by giving false assurance
of marriage, there was delay in lodging FIR and non disclosure of
incident to anyone would not materially affect the case of victim.

4
As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court acquitting the
respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 64 (2)(M) and
351 (2) of the BNS is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also
supported the case of the appellant.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record with utmost circumspection.
6. In the case at hand, the trial Court has primarily examined the
testimony of the victim (PW-1), being the main witness to the
alleged occurrence, along with the medical evidence, the testimony
of other prosecution witnesses and the documents collected during
investigation.
7. The victim at para-5 of her examination-in-chief has stated that she
had come from Rewa to Champa in the month of June and that she
and the accused subsequently started residing together in a live-in
relationship. She has further stated that the accused had assured her
that he would marry her upon attaining the age of 21 years.
Whenever she asked him to marry her, he used to assault her.
However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that she is
educated and capable to understand as to what is in her interest. She
also admitted that the accused was 17 years younger than her and
that their intimacy had increased during telephonic conversations in
the year 2022. She further admitted that she had two children from

5
her previous marriage, aged about 19 years and 16 years,
respectively.
8. This Court would take note of the fact that the victim had not
lodged any complaint against the accused alleging physical assault.
It was also admitted by the victim that she had not made any
complaint regarding the alleged administration of tablets by the
accused for termination of pregnancy. Though the victim had
alleged that the accused compelled her to take tablets after she
became pregnant, however, the said allegation was not supported by
any independent or medical evidence. Therefore, this Court finds
that the allegation of physical assault and forced termination of
pregnancy has not been established.
9. Apart from that, Dr. Anita Shrivastava, (PW-2), who has medically
examined the victim, has stated that the victim has not disclosed to
her that the accused had forcibly established physical relations with
her. This witness has further stated that no signs of forcible sexual
intercourse were found during medical examination. Thus, the
medical evidence does not corroborate with the allegation of
forcible sexual intercourse.
10. (PW-3) Vimla Jaiswal, in her cross-examination, has stated that she
did not know whether the victim was in love with the accused or
whether she intended to marry him. She has further acknowledged
that the accused had an office in one of the rooms of the victim’s

6
house. Although she referred to the information regarding the
victim’s pregnancy and the tablets allegedly brought by the accused,
however, her evidence did not independently establish the
circumstances in which the tablets were taken or that the accused
had compelled the victim to undergo an abortion. In the considered
opinion of this Court, testimony of this witness does not materially
establish the allegations of rape, assault or forced termination of
pregnancy.
11. (PW-4) Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi has admitted in his cross-
examination that he did not know whether the accused had
contributed money towards the construction of the victim’s house or
whether the accused was paying rent for the office situated therein.
He also expressed lack of knowledge regarding any dispute between
the parties concerning monetary transactions in the year 2025.
Although he referred to an incident of physical assault, he was
unable to state the cause or the circumstances in which the alleged
assault had taken place. Thus, this witness had no direct knowledge
of the material circumstances of the alleged offences and that his
testimony does not establish the criminal liability of the accused.
12.
The victim’s written complaint, her statement made during
investigation and her deposition were considered by the trial Court.
Upon considering these materials collectively, it found that the
prosecution had not established the essential circumstances

7
necessary to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial Court observed that the fact of intimacy and the
subsequent live-in relationship between the parties could not by
themselves lead to a finding of criminal liability in the absence of
sufficient evidence establishing the requisite elements of the
offences charged.
13. On close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, we are of the
opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused
had committed rape on the false pretext of promise of marriage, and
the allegations concerning physical assault, threats and termination
of pregnancy had not been sufficiently substantiated by the evidence
collected and proved during trial. Thus, this Court is of the view
that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial Court was absolutely
justified in acquitting the accused of the charges under Sections
64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the BNS.
14. In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) (Sudhir Kumar)
Judge Judge
Barve