1 2025:CGHC:33599-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1274 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Seema Tiwari W/o Devi Prasad Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Mela Ground, Lormi, Police Station Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Sandeep Vaishnav S/o Ramkumar Vaishnav Aged About 22 Years R/o Kodwamahant, Police Station Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.07.2025 1. I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing of the petition. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.18 18:49:31 +0530 2 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.10.2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 29/2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mungeli, District:Mungeli, C.G. whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences punishable under Sections 370, 365, 366, 120B of the IPC and Section 9(1)(2) of the C.G. Private Placement Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2013. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim met Seema Tiwari/respondent No.1 on 20-02-2019 during a Bhagwat program at Sita Palace, Lormi. Then, Seema Tiwari/respondent No.1 called the vicitm after four days of Bhagwat program, then she went to Bilaspur after informing her brother. Seema Tiwari introduced the victim to her husband Devi Singh and brother Sandeep/respondent No.2 and kept her at her home in Uslapur for two days. Thereafter, the respondents took the victim by train at around 03.00 pm saying that they will get her a job in Pendra. Then victim became intoxicated after drinking water, given by Seema. She got down from Jhansi railway station and boarded another train. Then, they took her to Lal Singh's house on a motorcycle. After staying there for a night, all of them came to Kasara in the morning in a jeep, where the victim stayed at night and Pappu came to her and made physically relation with her forcefully. Thereafter, Seema/respondent No.2 told to victim that they sold her to Pappu Jatav for Rs. 1,50,000 and left. Pappu Jatav used to commit sexual intercourse with her. On 22-03-2019, the complainant called her brother and told him about the incident, regarding which, a written 3 complaint was submitted by the complainant PW-2,Rajkumar Patel, at Lormi police station. On the above written complaint, FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered at Police Station Lormi and the case was taken into investigation. During the investigation, a team was formed and the victim was recovered from the possession of the Pappu Jatav from Karauli, Rajasthan. 5. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they have pleaded that they have been falsely implicated and they are innocent. 6. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.10.2024 acquitted the respondents/accused herein from the charges framed against them. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law and the evidence available on record. He submits that the allegations leveled by the victim upon the respondent/father were proved by cogent evidence, but the learned trial Court has not considered the evidence which supported the case of prosecution. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the material & evidences and acquitted the respondent, which is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 4 8. We have perused the judgment passed by the trial Court along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal with utmost circumspection. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondents has observed in paragraphs 23 and 24 as follows:- “23. The Investigating Officer of the case, Kavita Dhurve (PW-13) admits in cross-examination that, as per the written complaint of Ex.P-05, no call details exhibited regarding the information given by the prosecutrix over the phone about the incident, seizure of documents related to call detail also not on record; and no evidence was recorded regarding the call details of victim and her brother. Neither the memorandum statement of the respondents was recorded regarding the sale of the prosecutrix nor any money was recovered from their possession. The prosecutrix was recovered not from the possession of respondents but from the police station Masalpur, Rajasthan. No document is exhibited in the case regarding the accused Seema Tiwari taking the prosecutrix along with her to Rajasthan and any money recovered from her; and no document is exhibited in the case regarding the respondent No.2Sandeep Vaishnav ever going to Rajasthan. 5 24. In the light of the entire evidence discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the respondetns are given the benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges under Sections 370, 365, 366, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9 (1) (2) of the CG Private Employment Act, 2013. 10. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 11. In the present case, the victim has alleged that the respondents took her Pendra on the pretext providing her job, but she was subjected to forcibly sexual intercourse and she was sold by the respondents to one Pappu, but during the travel, she has not made any objection or did not complain to anyone. She was stayed for about one 6 month, where accused Pappu made physical relation with her. Had she been forcefully raped her against her will or consent, she would definitely raised alarm or to make complaint to the anyone. Apart from that, neither the memorandum statement of the respondents were recorded regarding the sale of the victim nor any money was recovered from their possession. The victim was recovered not from the possession of respondents but from the police station Masalpur, Rajasthan. No document is exhibited in the case regarding the respondent No.1 Seema Tiwari taking the prosecutrix along with her to Rajasthan or any money recovered from her; and no document is exhibited in the case regarding the respondent No.2 Sandeep Vaishnav ever going to Rajasthan. 12. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/State and other evidence available on record, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents from aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record. We do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and consequently, acquittal appeal is also dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib