1 2025:CGHC:36092-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 296 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Sandeep Singh S/o Jaggi Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Gumbal, P. S. Pithouwa, District Kurukshetra (Harayana), 2 - Vikas Lohat S/o Rajvir Lohat Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Gorakhpur, P. S. Gunna, District Fatehpur (Harayana) 3 - Harvinder Singh S/o Baggsingh Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Galeuda, P. S. Pihouwa, District Kurukshetra (Haryana) 4 - Santosh Singh S/o Vachan Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Baras, P. S. Nisang, District Karnali (Haryana) ---- Respondents For Appellant/State :Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondents :None, though served DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 25.07.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 19.02.2018, passed by the Special SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.26 11:39:01 +0530 2 Judge (Atrocities), Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.02/2017, whereby, the respondents No.1- Sandeep Singh, No.2- Vikas Lohat and No.3-Harvinder Singh, have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 365/34 and 376(D) of IPC, read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”), while respondent No.4-Santosh Singh under Section 367 of IPC, read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that a written report (Ex.P- 13) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 29.11.2016 before the Police Station, Bilaigarh of District Balodabazar, alleging inter alia, that the respondents have kidnapped her and committed sexual intercourse with her and based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex.P-14) was registered against three unknown Harvester drivers for the offence punishable under Section 376(D) read with Section 34 of IPC and, during the course of investigation, her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.01.2017 vide Ex.P-19 and, was medically examined by Dr. Kiran Chouhan (PW-10), who vide her report (Ex.P-28) has not found any kind of injury on her body, nor has found any sign of recent sexual intercourse committed upon her. During further investigation, the undergarments of the respondents No.1-Sandeep Singh, No.2- Vikas Lohat and No.3-Harvinder Singh, were recovered vide Exs.P-2, P-3 and P-4, respectively on 30.11.2016, while a motorcycle was recovered from the respondent No.4-Santosh Singh, vide Ex.P-5 and, the undergarments so recovered from the 3 respondents No.1, 2 and 3 were sent for chemical examination, but no report as such was placed on record and, after completion of the investigation, the concerned Police Station has submitted the charge- sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaigarh against the respondents under Sections 376(D) and 365/34 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charges under Sections 365/34, 376(D) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act have been framed against the respondents No.1-Sandeep Singh, No.2- Vikas Lohat and No.3-Harvinder Singh, while respondent No.4- Santosh Singh was charge-sheeted under section 367 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and, the charges so framed were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-4) and her parents, examined as PW-5 and PW-6, held that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court, holding that the respondents are not the authors of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-4) and parents of her, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in 4 acquitting them, as such. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice of this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/state and perused the entire record carefully. 7. Respondents No.1-Sandeep Singh, No.2- Vikas Lohat and No.3- Harvinder Singh, have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 365/34 and 376(D) of IPC, read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, while respondent No.4-Santosh Singh under Section 367 of IPC, read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act in connection with Crime No.437/2016. According to the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix, as reveled from the written report (Ex.P-13) lodged by her on 29.11.2016, the respondents have kidnapped her on 26.11.2016 in the night, around 08:30 pm and have committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-4 and it appears from her testimony, particularly paragraph 1, where she has failed to identify the respondents, who were present in the Court. Although, a Test Identification Parade (Ex.P- 1) was conducted on 30.11.2016, where she has identified the respondents, but in her evidence, as revealed from paragraph 11, would show that when the alleged Test Identification Parade was conducted, the respondents present before the Court were, however, not present. Therefore, no reliance as such upon the alleged Test Identification Parade (Ex.P-1) could be relied upon. Further of her (PW- 5 4) testimony would reveal the fact that the alleged report (Ex.P-13) was not written by her and, in fact, that was written by her maternal uncle. 9. It is to be seen further that although, the undergarments were recovered from the respondents vide Exs. P-2 to P-4 and were sent for chemical examination, but no report as such was placed on record and, even Dr. Kiran Chouhan (PW-10), who examined her on 30.11.2016, has, however, not found any kind of injury on her body, nor a sign of sexual intercourse was found to be committed upon her and, even the parents of the prosecutrix, who were examined as PW-5 and PW-6 have not supported the allegations levelled by her. 10. In view of such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence attributing the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime and, the trial Court, has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita