1 2025:CGHC:7523-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 22 of 2016 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Aditya Kumar Gupta, S/o Ramdev Prasad Gupta, aged about 23 Years, R/o Belkurta P.S. Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur – Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 12.02.2025 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 06.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.157/2013, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 376 of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.02.13 18:04:28 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.10.2012 at about 1:00 pm, prosecutrix went to forest to collect wood, at that time, respondent/accused came there, caught hold of her hands, pushed her on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When prosecutrix started shouting, respondent/accused left her and fled away from there. Thereafter, prosecutrix came to her home and informed the incident to her relatives. After that, she went to Police Station- Ramchandrapur and lodged written report (Ex.P-1) against the respondent, pursuant to which, FIR (Ex.P-2) has been registered against the respondent. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4. Consent letter (Ex.P-8) of prosecutrix was obtained and she was sent for medical examination where Dr. S.T. (PW-15) examined the victim and did not notice any sign of injury over the person of the prosecutrix nor found any sign of recent sexual intercourse and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-29. Vide Ex.P-9 clothes of prosecutrix were seized. Seized clothes were sent to FSL for chemical examination, but no FSL report has been brought on record. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court under Section 376 of IPC. Accused/respondent abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 29 documents connecting the respondent/accused to the crime in 3 question. However, in his defence, respondent/accused has examined none and not exhibited any document. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charge leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is evidence available on record to show that on the date of incident, respondent/accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective, thus the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and perused the material available on record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 4 9. Present case is based only on the evidence of PW-1 prosecutrix and a bare perusal of the statement of prosecutrix would show that she herself has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case as she has stated that in her statement that respondent/accused did not commit anything with her and further has nowhere made any allegation against the respondent/accused. This apart, PW-2 father of the prosecutrix, PW-3 mother of the prosecutrix, PW-4 grand-mother of the prosecutrix and PW-10 grand-father of the prosecutrix have also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Besides, PW- 15 Dr. S.T who medically examined the prosecutrix did not notice any sign of injury over the person of the prosecutrix either internally or externally and also did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse. 10. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent and clinching evidence which would show the complicity of the respondent/accused in the crime in question and as such, acquitted accused/respondent of the said charge leveled against him on the basis of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 376 of IPC, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 5 12. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent of the aforesaid offence is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh