1 2025:CGHC:43325-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2493 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Station House Officer, Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sandeep Singh Sidar S/o Shivkumar Sidar Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Sanjay Nagar, Akaltara, Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. Heard on application filed under Section 419(3) of BNSS, 2023 for grant of leave to appeal. 2. This petition is preferred against the judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Sessions Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.28 16:57:55 +0530 2 Case No.55/2022 whereby the said Court has acquitted the respondent for commission of offence under Sections 376 and 506-II of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 03.04.2022, the prosecutrix had lodged a written report stating that she was married to Manmohan Sidar about one year ago, as per social custom. On 22.03.2022, the husband of the prsuctrix went to attend a family function. In the middle of the night, when she went to sleep in her room, as the room was not locked, the accused, Sandeep Singh Sidar, brother-in-law (Jeth) of the prosecutrix, forcibly entered the room and raped her and kept threatening her continuously from the date of the incident. Based on this, FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 148/2022 in Police Station – Akaltara, District – Janjgir- Champa and after due investigation charge sheet was filed. 4. On the basis of the complaint charge under Section 376 and 506-II of the IPC were framed against the accused/respondent. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the accused/respondent of the aforesaid offence. Hence, the 3 petition. 5. Learned State counsel submits that on appreciation of prosecution witnesses, it has been proved that the accused had committed the forceful rape with the prosecutrix and committed an offence against her. The learned trial Court has passed the order of acquittal on the bais of conclusion that have been arrived taking into consideration that the undergarment of both the accused and victim were sent for forensic investigation, against which the report has been received in which semen and human sperm were though found in the undergarment of the accused whereas no sign of semen and human sperm was found in the undergarment of the victim. Further, the learned trial Court has given undue benefit to the accused for not finding any circumstantial evidence against him. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the deposition given by the doctor (PW-4), wherein she had specifically stated that she had examined the blue underwear of the victim and she had found blood stains in the underwear of the victim. Hence, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper and bad in law, and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard learned State counsel and perused the record of learned trial Court. 4 7. Looking to the material available on record, it is clear that the accused/respondent is the brother-in-law (tsB) of the victim. The medical examination of the victim and the FSL report of the seized articles do not support the prosecution's case. The incident occurred on 22.03.2022, and the FIR was lodged on 03.04.2022 with a delay of about 11 days. There was a previous dispute between the parties. On 02.04.2022, a day before the FIR dated 03.04.2022, there was a dispute between the two brothers, i.e. the husband of the victim and the accused/respondent, and the victim lodged the report on the very next day i.e. on 03.04.2022. There are no independent witnesses in this case, and the statement of the victim is not found credible. 8. 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.” 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for 5 the State/petitioner and in view of the law laid down in the appeal against acquittal and the scope and ambit of Section 419 of BNSS, 2023. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence and recorded a finding of acquittal. After reassessing the entire evidence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no reason to substitute a contrary finding. It is not a case where the respondent should be called for full consideration of the case. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to grant leave to appeal. 10.Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the Cr.M.P. stands dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu