Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Brother-in-Law’s Acquittal In Rape Case, Citing Material Contradictions In Complainant’s Testimony

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court’s findings resulting in acquittal were contrary to the evidence or perverse so as to warrant appellate interference

The court held

The High Court answered the principal issue against the appellant, holding that the acquittal was neither perverse nor affected by a patent illegality or material misappreciation of evidence.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal and left respondent No. 2’s acquittal under Section 376 of the IPC undisturbed.

01Facts

The appellant-complainant alleged that on 17 December 2018, respondent No. 2, her brother-in-law, raped her in her home.

pp. 2–3, 8

She alleged that she attempted to report the incident to the police but that the police did not register her complaint; an FIR under Section 376 of the IPC was registered on 9 March 2019, following her approach to the State Human Rights Commission.

pp. 2–3, 8

After trial, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, acquitted respondent No. 2, finding that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

pp. 1, 3–4

The complainant appealed against the acquittal.

pp. 1, 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court’s findings resulting in acquittal were contrary to the evidence or perverse so as to warrant appellate interference

p. 7

ii.2. Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficiently reliable to displace the acquittal and establish the charge under Section 376 of the IPC

pp. 13–15

03Law Applied

Section 376 of the IPC criminalises rape.

In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the acquittal, and appellate interference is warranted where the judgment is perverse, materially misreads or omits evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible and the evidence permits only a view consistent with guilt (*Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand*, 2025 INSC 114).

pp. 15–16

A victim’s testimony may, if exceptionally reliable and consistent, support conviction without corroboration; where the account has material flaws or gaps, the court must assess whether it inspires confidence (*Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar*, (2020) 3 SCC 443; *Nirmal Premkumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police*, (2024) 20 SCC 293).

pp. 14–15

Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376 Section 34 Section 506 Section 323 Section 294 Section 452

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313 Section 125 Section 161

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12

04Reasoning

The High Court found no basis to displace the trial court’s assessment.

pp. 7–9, 13–14

The trial court had relied on material discrepancies and omissions in the evidence of the complainant and her daughter, the absence of signs of struggle noted by the examining doctor, and the non-production of the allegedly torn undergarment.

pp. 7–9, 13–14

It also considered the surrounding circumstances, including the children’s proximity to the alleged incident and the dispute between the complainant and the accused’s family.

pp. 12–13

Applying the principles governing the reliability of a victim’s testimony and appellate review of acquittals, the High Court concluded that the complainant’s evidence did not meet the required standard of reliability and that the trial court’s view was neither perverse nor legally unsustainable.

pp. 14–16

05Holding

The High Court answered the principal issue against the appellant, holding that the acquittal was neither perverse nor affected by a patent illegality or material misappreciation of evidence.

p. 16

It dismissed the appeal and left respondent No. 2’s acquittal under Section 376 of the IPC undisturbed.

p. 16

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF