1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 262 of 2018 Reserved on 26.09.2025 Delivered on 06.10.2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Mahendra Yadav S/o Bhuneshwar Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Ratihadamarpara, Talkeshwarpur, Police Station Sanwal, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal CAV JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.10.06 14:03:11 +0530 2 judgment of acquittal dated 28.10.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Civil District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. R. 47/2015, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376(1) of IPC. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 12.04.2015 at about 2:00 a.m., the prosecutrix (PW-1) went towards Beldamer for collecting Mahua. At about 4:00 a.m., accused Mahendra Yadav came there and committed forcefully sexual intercourse with her. After the incident, the prosecutrix informed her brother-in-law, Sudama, who then informed her husband about the incident. The prosecutrix and her husband lodged a complaint at Sanawal Police Station leading to an investigation. The police collected evidence, including the victim's and accused's clothing and sent it for forensic examination. After completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The statement of respondent / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 376(1) of IPC. Hence, the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court suffer from perversity inasmuch as they are against the weight of evidence and based on conjectures. The acquittal has resulted from mis- appreciation of material evidence and incorrect application of legal principles. Such a perverse and unjust acquittal calls for interference by the appellate Court in exercise of its powers under law. The order of acquittal, therefore, deserves to be set aside, and the accused/respondent be convicted and punished under the offence for which he was charged. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the trial Court has passed the judgment after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, which does not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, in the case of “State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram” reported in 2022 4 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.” 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, from the statements of the prosecution witnesses it is evident that the victim's husband Fulchand (PW-3), brother-in-law Sudama Yadav (PW- 9), mother-in-law Smt. Kunti (PW-10) & father-in-law Muneshwar Yadav (PW-7) have support the alleged commission of offence by the respondent with the victim. However, their knowledge of the incident is based on what the victim (PW-1) told them, making their testimony hearsay evidence, which is not admissible in evidence. The victim (PW-1) herself does not support the case of prosecution and denies that the incident occurred. She also does not support her written report (Ex.P/1) alleging rape by the accused. The respondent is the cousin brother-in-law of the victim. There is no definite opinion given in the MLC report of the victim. According to the FSL report, semen and human sperm stains were found on the undergarment of the victim but DNA test has not been done to prove that the same belong to the appellant. Further, human sperm was not found on the slide and the prosecutrix is a married woman. In such a situation, it has not been proved 5 that the semen or human sperm belongs to the appellant. There is no other evidence to corroborate the case of prosecution. Given the victim's testimony and the lack of corroborating evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly recorded a finding of acquittal. 10. In the light of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment and considering the entire facts and evidence of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Therefore, there is no need for any interference in it. 11. Thus, this appeal against acquittal is dismissed. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- S Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Khatai Judge Judge