REDACTED vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally
signed by
KISHORE
KUMAR
DESHMUKH
Date:
2026.10.29
10:38:54
+0530
KISHORE
KUMAR
DESHMUKH
Page 1 of 16


CGHC010101322024 2026:CGHC:45420-DB
NAFR
Reserved on : 24.09.2026
Delivered on : 28.10.2026
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 179 of 2024
1 - Xyz
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bilaigarh, District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
2 - Prahlad Kumar Rakesh S/o Chaituram Rakesh Aged About 24 Years
R/o Bazar Road, Bilaigarh Police Station Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-
Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate
For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocates
For R/2 : Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas , Judge and
Hon'ble Shri Sudhir Kumar , Judge
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Per Narendra Kumar Vyas,J.
1. The acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant
against the judgment of acquittal passed by the First Additional

Page 2 of 16
Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar (C.G.) dated 29.11.2022, in
Sessions Case No. 78/2019, whereby respondent No.2/accused
has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 376 of
the IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that:-
A. The victim filed written complaint before the State Human Rights
Commission on 01.02.2019 alleging the atrocity committed by the
Thana Incharge C.R. Chandra who is relative of the accused’s
family and against inaction of the police in lodging the FIR. The
Commission forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of
Police and thereafter the FIR (Ex.P/3) bearing Crime No. 65/2019
was lodged on 09.03.2019 by the Police Station Bhilagarh for
commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
B. As per the case of the prosecution, on 17.12.2018, at about 7:30
p.m., when the victim was cooking food in her house, her brother-
in-law/accused Prahlad Kumar Rakesh entered her house and
caught hold of her from behind and wrapped his arms around her
abdomen. Despite her repeated objections the accused did not
leave her. At that time, her three children were studying in another
room. Despite her repeated resistance, the accused placed his
hand on her chest and pressed her breast. He pulled her sari, lifted
her petticoat, pushed her to the ground and lay over her, and tore
her undergarment. He then climbed over her. The victim continued
to struggle and tried to push him away, but she was unable to do
so. In order to keep silence her, the accused pressed his mouth

Page 3 of 16
against hers and thereafter raped her. After committing the rape,
when the accused removed his mouth from hers, the victim raised
an alarm. Hearing her cries, her children came there, whereupon
the accused fled away from the spot. The victim narrated the
incident to her daughter and after gathering courage, the victim
went to Police Station Bilaigarh to lodge a report against the
accused but the police officers to protect the accused have
deliberately avoided registration of FIR which has compelled her to
lodge complaint before the Human Rights Commission. Thereafter,
on the interference of the Commission, the FIR has been lodged.
C. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the
accused on 01.11.2019 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bilaigarh who vide order dated 05.11.2019 committed
the case and on committal the case was received by the First
Additional Sessions Judge on 26.11.2029.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as 8
witnesses and exhibited 11 documents and the accused in his
defence examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited 19
documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. wherein he has taken plea of false implication and did not
adduce any evidence. In his statement recorded under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. he has taken plea of false implication and alibi
stating that he was at Raipur at the time of alleged incident.
4. On the basis of the evidence and material available on record, the
learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the prosecution has

Page 4 of 16
failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Consequently, the learned Trial Court acquitted
the accused of the charges framed against him. Being aggrieved
by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the victim has preferred the
present acquittal appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned
trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record
and wrongly acquitted the accused. He would further submit that
learned trial Court has wrongly drawn adverse inference of
malafide owing to multiple court cases whereas claim of the victim
gets strengthened by the multiple cases that the rape was a trick
to discourage the victim. He would further submit that learned trial
Court has also erred in giving undue weightage to the fact that
within a short distance the children were studying to raise doubt
over the case of the prosecution. Thus, findings are perverse, as
such, the judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside by this
Court and would pray for allowing the appeal.
6. Learned State counsel, supporting the appeal, would submit that
the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error in
appreciating the evidence available on record and has
erroneously acquitted the accused. Learned State counsel would
further submit that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate
the evidence in its proper perspective and has considered the
alleged discrepancies in isolation instead of examining the
prosecution evidence as a whole. She would further submit that

Page 5 of 16
the conduct of the victim immediately after the occurrence is also
a relevant circumstance supporting the prosecution case. The fact
that the complainant immediately approached the police and tried
to lodge the report on the same day, without any unreasonable or
unexplained delay, lends assurance to the prosecution version.
Thus, she would pray for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused
opposing the aforesaid submission would submit that the learned
Trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence available on
record, has rightly acquitted the accused. He would further submit
that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based
upon proper appreciation of evidence which are neither perverse
nor contrary to the material available on record. He would further
submit that the accused was not present at the place of alleged
incident as he was present at Raipur where he was studying
Bachelor of Computer Application course. The prosecution was
required to prove by reliable and cogent evidence, the occurrence
as alleged and the involvement of the accused therein which they
miserably failed to prove.
8. He would further submit that the statement of the daughter of the
victim and the victim suffers from material contradictions,
omissions and inconsistencies on material particulars concerning
the manner in which the alleged incident took place. The
prosecution story, particularly regarding the conduct of the
accused, the sequence of events and the circumstances in which

Page 6 of 16
the accused allegedly escaped from the house, does not inspire
confidence. Particularly, the statement of the victim is not of
sterling quality to base conviction. The victim has lodged various
cases against the family members of the accused to harass them
and in continuation of the same habit, she has falsely implicated
him in the present case. The learned Trial Court has rightly
examined these discrepancies and, upon proper appreciation of
the evidence, found that the prosecution version was not free from
doubt. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not
lend corroboration to the prosecution case.
9. He would further submit that in an appeal against acquittal, the
accused continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence, which
stands further strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed
by the learned Trial Court, unless the findings recorded by the Trial
Court are shown to be manifestly erroneous, perverse, or wholly
contrary to the evidence on record. Learned counsel would,
therefore, submit that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any
perversity, illegality or material misappreciation of evidence in the
impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court has assigned cogent
and plausible reasons for extending the benefit of doubt to the
accused. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of acquittal does
not warrant any interference and the appeal preferred by the
victim deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with utmost circumspection.

Page 7 of 16
11. After considering the submission of the learned counsel for the
parties and perusal of the record the point emerged for
consideration is:-
“Whether the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court,
resulting in acquittal of the respondent/accused, are contrary to
the evidence on record and perverse, warranting interference by
this Court?”.
12. To appreciate the point of determination, it is expedient for this
Court to examine the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution.
13. Evidence of the victim (PW/1) : - The witness, in her
examination-in-chief, reiterated the prosecution case and, in
paragraph 9, stated that her underwear was sought to be seized,
however, as the same was torn, she had kept it at a place which
she could not recollect and, therefore, she was unable to produce
it for seizure. In paragraph 11, she stated that on 18.12.2018, her
in-laws approached her and requested her not to lodge a
complaint, assuring her that they would take care of her. They
further proposed to provide her a room in her matrimonial house.
However, when she went to the matrimonial house, she was
allegedly abused and assaulted by them. In her cross-
examination, she admitted that she was residing in a single-room
house which had been partitioned into two portions by bricks. She
further admitted that her husband used to visit her and his last visit
was on 06.11.2021 and on that date he made physical

Page 8 of 16
relationship with her. She also admitted that, in September 2021,
her husband had instituted a divorce petition against her. With
regard to the incident, she admitted that she could have raised an
alarm, but initially she was requesting the accused to leave her.
According to her, thereafter, the accused pressed her mouth, due
to which she could not raise an alarm. She further stated that
while the accused held her mouth with one hand, he opened the
chain of his pant with the other hand. When it was asked to her
that it is not possible to open the pant with one hand, she clarified
that the accused had only opened the chain of his pant and she
did not know whether he was wearing underwear or not. She
further admitted that the accused remained there for
approximately 4–5 minutes. As regards the delay in lodging the
FIR, she stated that the Station House Officer was a relative of the
accused and, therefore, did not register her complaint for many
days. She further stated that she visited the police station for
about 15 days and thereafter approached the Human Rights
Commission and only upon intervention of the Commission the
FIR was registered, i.e. on 09.03.2019, approximately 23 days
after the date of the alleged incident.
14. Evidence of the daughter of the victim (PW/2) : - In her
examination-in-chief, the witness reiterated the prosecution case
and stated that at the time of the alleged incident, she and her two
sisters heard the voice of their mother. Upon hearing her cries, all
three sisters rushed to the room and saw the accused was lying

Page 9 of 16
on top of their mother. On seeing the accused, they questioned
him as to what he was doing, whereupon the accused fled away
from the spot. In her cross-examination, the witness admitted that
hair of her mother was not knitted, this fact has been stated for the
first time before the trial Court. She has further admitted that due
to dispute between them with her grand fathers’ family there are
no family terms between them for the last 8-10 years.
15. Evidence of Dr. Neha Gangeshree (PW/4) : - In her examination-
in-chief, she has stated that there was no sign of struggle on the
body of the victim, therefore, she cannot give any definite opinion
with regard to forcible sexual intercourse and exhibited report
(Ex.P/7A).
16. Evidence of the accused (DW/1) : - In his examination-in-chief,
the accused denied the allegations levelled against him and stated
that, on 17.12.2018, the date of the alleged incident, he was at
Raipur pursuing his BCA course. He further stated that, after about
two to three months, he received a telephone call from his family
informing him that the victim had lodged an FIR against him. He
further deposed that, during the course of investigation, the police
had visited his room at Raipur, where two of his friends were also
present. According to him, his friends informed the police that he
was present at Raipur on the date of the alleged incident. He
further stated that the police had also verified the location of his
mobile phone and found that he was at Raipur on the relevant
date. In his cross-examination, he stated that the victim resides in

Page 10 of 16
a house comprising one room, one kitchen and a small kitchen
garden. He clarified that he was aware of the said particulars on
the basis of his visit to the said house when he was studying in
Class VII or VIII. The witness exhibited the order passed by the
learned trial Court dated 16.06.2015 (Ex.D/4) by which the
accused’s brother, father and mother were acquitted from the
charges of commission of offence under Section 498A, 34 of the
IPC lodged by the complainant and also exhibited the order dated
06.11.2012 (Ex.D/5) by which the complainant has been convicted
under Section 506(II), 323 of the IPC, order dated 23.08.2018
(Ex.D/7) by which the accused’s brother and father have again
been acquitted from the offence of Section 498A, 323/34 of the
IPC. The accused has also exhibited the copy of the complaint
filed by the victim under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act
(Ex.D/8) and order sheets as Ex.D/9) by which the complaint
against remaining accused except Laxmi Prasad and Prahlad was
allowed to be continued, FIR (Ex.D/10) lodged by the victim
against the accused’s mother and father under Sections 294, 323,
506B, 452, 34 IPC.
17. Evidence of Chaitu Ram Kahra, father-in-law of the victim
(DW/2) :- In his examination-in-chief, he denied the allegations
levelled against the accused and stated that the victim had given a
letter threatening him in writing that she would destroy his family.
He further stated that, looking to the conduct of the victim, he had
constructed a house at Banglabhata, where the victim was

Page 11 of 16
residing with her husband and daughters. He further stated that in
the year 2009, his son telephonically informed him that he was
unwell. Upon reaching Banglabhata, they found his son lying in a
pool of blood. His son informed him that the victim had assaulted
him with a stone grinder and a knife and thereafter she had gone
to her parental home. He took his son to the hospital and lodged a
complaint in respect of the incident. The victim was subsequently
convicted by the Court and fined reiterated the contents of the
charges levelled against the victim and also mentioned the details
of criminal cases lodged by the complainant. He further stated that
his youngest son, i.e. the accused, was studying at Raipur and
had been falsely implicated in the present case.
18. Evidence of Laxmi Prasad Rakesh, husband of the victim
(DW/3) : - In his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the stand
taken by his father (DW-2) and stated that the victim had instituted
a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act against him, his
parents and other relatives before Janjgir Court, which is still
pending consideration. He further stated that the victim had also
instituted a proceeding against him under Section 125 of the CrPC
before the Janjgir Court, pursuant to which he is paying
maintenance of ₹5,500/- per month. He stated that, on account of
default in payment of maintenance, he had been sent to jail on
about twelve occasions. He further deposed that the victim is
highly quarrelsome, short-tempered and vindictive in nature due to
which in retaliation, she had instituted several false cases against

Page 12 of 16
him and his family members. He stated that she had also lodged a
false case of rape against his younger brother, i.e. the accused in
the present case. He further stated that, being fed up with the
conduct of the victim, he had filed a divorce petition before the
Family Court at Baloda Bazar. According to him, the victim
continues to threaten him by stating that either he should keep her
with him or she would kill him by causing a vehicular accident. In
his cross-examination, he stated that during the year 2013–14, he
had gone to Jammu and Kashmir for livelihood. He returned in the
year 2019, and thereafter he came to know that the victim had
lodged an FIR against his younger brother, i.e. the accused, for an
offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. He further
stated that he had no knowledge as to whether, on the date of the
alleged incident, the accused was at Raipur or at Bhilaigarh. He
denied the suggestion that the Thana In-charge was his relative.
19. The learned trial Court considering the evidence of Doctor PW/4
has recorded its finding in paragraph 50 that there was no sign of
forceful commission of offence of rape on the body of the victim.
Learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that from 3-4 feet
of the place of occurrence the children were studying, as such it is
not possible that in case commission of offence of rape is
committed the children would have not heard the hue and cry of
the victim and would not have come to rescue. The Trial Court
while considering the evidence that the incident was occurred in
the Kitchen where the victim was preparing food in the earthen

Page 13 of 16
stove then also she can attack with any of the material available
at the place of occurrence as both her hands were free and she
could have resisted. The trial Court has also recorded its finding
that PW/2 in her evidence before the trial Court has admitted that
she has not mentioned the fact that the respondent No. 2 was
climbing over her mother in her statement under Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C. which also indicates that the witness has improved her
statement. It has also recorded its finding that there is material
contradiction and omission in the evidence of the victim and her
daughter. The trial Court was also rightly impressed with the inter-
se dispute between the complainant and the family members of
the accused to record a finding that complainant’s statement was
not of sterling quality for recording of the conviction coupled with
the opinion of the doctor and the medical evidence.
20. Further considering that the victim in her evidence has deposed
that the accused has committed offence of rape after tearing her
undergarment but that was not produced by her despite
demanded by the prosecution which goes against the case of the
prosecution as it was a vital piece of evidence which could have
thrown light on the case of the prosecution. In absence of any
cogent or reliable evidence the trial Court was justified in
acquitting the accused.
21. Even from the appreciation of the evidence brought on record,
particularly the statement of PW/1 the Victim which is not of a
sterling quality, it will not be safe for this Court to reverse the well

Page 14 of 16
reasoned finding of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court
while hearing acquittal appeal. This Court cannot lose sight of the
legal preposition that on the statement of the victim an accused
can be convicted for commission of offence under Section 376 of
the IPC but it should be of sterling quality whereas in the present
case the victim’s statement does not confer confidence upon the
case of the prosecution for recording of conviction. The reasoning
and recording of acquittal by the trial Court on evidence led by the
prosecution, which is not of sterling quality, is in accordance with
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Prasad
Vs. State of Bihar {2020 (3) SCC 443} wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under :-
6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the
victim, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only
there are material contradictions, but even the manner in
which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version
of the victim is not believable. In the examination-in-chief, the
victim has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall
accused came inside and thereafter the accused committed
rape. She has stated that she identified the accused from the
light of the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. Even
nothing is on record that there was a broken compound wall.
She has further stated that in the morning at 10 O’clock she
went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However,
according to the investigating officer a written complaint was
given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is
registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the victim has
referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW1 and others.
However, Shanti Devi has not supported the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5 -
victim, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to
pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. There is a variation
in her version about giving the complaint. There is a delay in
the FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the
prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the
prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute
between both the parties with respect to land. The manner in
which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not

Page 15 of 16
believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, we find that the solitary version of the victim – PW5
cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the
absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope
to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt. ”
22. Again Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nirmal Premkumar vs.
State Represented by Inspector of Police {(2024) 20 SCC 293}
has examined the issue and recorded its finding as under:-
“24. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases
where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreli­
able, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of
the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling
witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and
credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the
victim ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end
(minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial statement to
the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prose­
cution’s case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for
sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account
from the victim, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could
make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.”
23. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that if one view has
been taken by the trial Court which is in favour of the accused,
normally the appellate Court should not interfere in the case of
acquittal, unless the finding is so perverse that only one view of
conviction is possible for the appellate Court. Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Anr vs.
State of Uttarakhand {2025 INSC 114} dealt with the issue when
an appellate Court can interfere in the order of acquittal passed by
the trial Court and held in paragraph 12 as under:-
“12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position
that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by
the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court
only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent

Page 16 of 16
perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission
to consider material evidence on record; and that no two
reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent
with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence
available on record.”
24. Considering the aforesaid law on the subject and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the
finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is neither
perverse, nor illegal. The findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court do not suffer from any patent illegality, misappreciation of
evidence, or manifest error of law warranting appellate Court
interference. Consequently, the order acquitting the respondent
No.2 of the charges levelled against him is fully justified and calls
for no interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) (Sudhir Kumar)
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
-