1 2025:CGHC:30081-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2194 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Petitioner versus Sandeep Singh S/o Nanhak Singh Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Sanawal, Police Station- Sanawal, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, C.G. Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.07.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2024 application for condonation of delay in filing of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for leave to appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.10.2023 passed in Special Trial No. 113/2020 by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.05 12:57:23 +0530 2 the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District: Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. whereby the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant PW-2, who is the husband of the prosecutrix, lodged a report at P.S. Basantpur stating therein that on 28.10.2020 he had gone to his uncle’s house to deliver Almira and when he returned home around 11 p.m., his wife/victim was not at home. Thereafter, he went for toilet in front of his house, where he heard the voice of his wife, he saw that the respondent/Sandeep Gond of village Sanawal was having physical relation with his wife/victim by gagging her mouth with a cloth. Then, the complainant caught the respondent at that time neighbor-Amarsai Gond came there. His wife came home and narrated the whole incident to her husband/complainant that when she had gone outside from the house to answer the nature’s call, Sandeep/respondent caught her, gagged her mouth with a towel, dragged her and committed sexual intercourse with her. On the basis of above fact, police registered an FIR against the respondent/Sandeep. 5. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. Statements of the respondent under Section 3 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein he has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and he is innocent. 6. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 10.10.2023 acquitted the respondent/accused herein from the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has erroneously disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix PW-1 who clearly supported the prosecution and stated in clear terms that the respondent committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. He further submits that it is settled principle of law that in an offence of rape, the conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix. Hence, the impugned judgment requires to be set aside and the respondent deserves to be convicted for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 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 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District:Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 24, 26, 27 and 28 as follows:- “24. Dr. Snehal Shekhar(PW-3), who examined the victim, stated that there were no marks of injury anywhere on the private parts of the body of victim. 4 26. As per medical report, there is no definite opinion given regarding recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 27.There is a lot of contradiction in the evidence of the victim and her husband and there is delay in lodging of FIR and the reason for the delay has not been explained by the victim and there is also contradiction regarding the Panchayat being held in the village and there is also a contradiction about happening of the incident in the written report and the evidence. The evidence of the victim's husband shows that he was not present at the time of the incident. Apart from that, the victim herself has said that she did not recognize the respondent and could not see the respondent at the time of the incident. Due to which, there is a reason to create doubt on the case of prosecution 28. In such a situation, there is sufficient reason to create a doubt on the case of prosecution with regard to the Section 376 of IPC and it is a well settled principle of law that the benefit of doubt always accrues to the accused. Hence, the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to prove its case beyond doubt against the accused/Sandeep Singh. Therefore, by giving the benefit of doubt, the accused Sandeep Singh is acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC." 10. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 5 "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, as per medical report, there is no definite opinion given regarding recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. There is a lot of contradiction in the evidence of the victim and her husband. Apart from that, there is delay in lodging of FIR and the reason for the delay has not been explained by the victim. 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 respondent/accused 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