1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 281 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on 18.07.2025 Judgment Reserved on 28.07.2025 • The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Chandresh Verma, S/o Videshi Verma, aged about 28 Years, 2. Dayalu Verma, S/o Mehataru Verma, aged about 29 Years, Both are R/o Village Sirsahi, Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : Ms. Komal Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.16/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the charge under Sections 450 & 376(2) (N) of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, aged about 24 years, was residing with her husband in village Hardi. On 19.11.2015, AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.07.28 15:21:49 +0530 2 she went to her maternal home in village Sirsahi and on that day, her husband and parents had gone to Budhanghat to attend the funeral of her maternal grand-father and she was alone at home with her younger brother. At that time, the accused persons/respondents entered the house, gagged the mouth of prosecutrix, pushed her on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one and thereafter they fled away from there. Based on this report, FIR (Ex.P-9) has been registered against the accused persons/respondents. 3. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4. After taking the consent of the prosecutrix, her medical examination was conducted by a Doctor who has not been examined. Undergarment of prosecutrix and accused persons were seized vide Exs.P-1 to P-3 respectively. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination, but the FSL report (Ex.P-11) does not indicate the presence of seminal stains and human spermatozoa on the seized articles marked as 'A, B, C & D.' 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. Accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 11 documents connecting the respondents/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondents/accused persons have examined none, but exhibited two documents i.e. D-1 & D-2. 6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the 3 accused persons/respondents herein of said charges leveled against them. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons / respondents herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is sufficient evidence available on record to show that respondents are the perpetrators of the crime in question. He would also submit that statement of prosecutrix is consistent and trustworthy, and the absence of medical evidence or FSL confirmation does not render the prosecution case doubtful. It would further contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal suffers from illegality and perversity and is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned judgment and submit that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record. She would further submit that the FSL report (Ex.P-11) does not confirm the presence of any seminal stains and human spermatozoa on the seized articles. She would also submit that in absence of examination of doctor, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault by the respondents and that the testimony of prosecutrix is not reliable and also not even corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant/State be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 10. 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.” 11. Now the question would be whether the respondents are the author of the crime in question? 12. PW-6 Prosecutrix has stated in her deposition that on 19.11.2015, she went to her maternal home situated at village Sirsahi and on that day, her husband and parents had gone to attend the funeral of her maternal grand-father and she was alone at home with her younger brother (PW-5). She has further stated that at about 12-12:30 pm, the accused persons/respondents entered the house and locked the door and upon seeing them, she and her brother (PW-5) started shouting, whereupon, the accused- Chandresh gagged her mouth, while the other accused- Dayalu committed marpeet with her brother (PW-5), but PW-5 has not stated that accused persons committed marpeet with him. She has further stated that after that, accused persons pushed her on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one and fled away from there. After that, she and her brother (PW-5) shouted for help, whereupon her neighbours (PW-1 Sukhdev and PW-3 Hemuram) came there and she informed about the incident to them. However, these 5 witnesses (PW-1 Sukhdev and PW-3) in their statements have stated that victim did not state them anything about the alleged incident. Victim was subjected to cross-examination and in cross-examination, she herself admitted that she had only told PW-1 Sukhdev and PW-3 Hemuram that thieves had entered the house and she did not tell them about the commission of rape by the accused persons with her. 13. PW-5 Brother of the prosecutrix has stated that on the date of incident, he and her sister/PW-6 were alone in the house and door was locked, but the accused persons open it and entered the house. However, on the contrary, in cross-examination, he admitted that when accused persons entered the house, the door was locked from inside and no one could open the door from outside. He has further stated that in front of him, accused persons pushed her sister/PW-6 to the ground and accused-Dayalu took him to other side. Thereafter, accused-Dayalu came near his sister and then they fled away from there. However, on the contrary, in cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see what had happened to his sister/PW-6 and he only saw accused- Chandresh pushing her sister. He further admitted that when he and her sister/PW-6 were going to the house of PW-1 Sukhdev, they were shouting 'chor- chor'. He also admitted that there are many houses nearby his house and on that road, there was thoroughfare of public. Firstly, this witness has stated that after the incident, accused persons fled away from there, but on the contrary, in cross-examination, he admitted that PW-1 Sukhdev and PW-3 Hemuram had caught the accused persons and tied them with a rope. 14. Besides above, PW-1 Sukhdev has stated that when he entered the 6 house of the victim, he saw accused persons fleeing away from the back side and after ½ an hour, village people caught the accused persons and brought them. However, on the contrary, in cross-examination, he admitted that after the incident, accused persons were sitting at a salon shop and from there, he and one Dhannu caught the accused persons and brought them. It is pertinent to mention here that, had the accused persons committed the offence in question, then why would they have been present in the salon shop, rather they would have fled away. Furthermore, it does not appear from the statement of victim/PW-6 that PW-1 Sukhdev and PW-3 Hemuram had come to her house and she narrated the alleged incident to them there. 15. Thus, from perusal of above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are many contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-6 Prosecutrix and PW-5 Brother of the prosecutrix with respect to alleged incident and their statements do not corroborate with each other and the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, therefore, credibility of their evidence is doubtful. This apart, PW-1 Sukhdev and PW-3 Hemuram have also turned hostile and not supported the case by stating that they have not seen the incident and that too, the prosecutrix did not tell them anything about the alleged incident. Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine the medical officer who had examined the prosecutrix nor any medical report was proved through competent authority to unfold the factum of incident. Moreover, the seized articles i.e. undergarments & slides of prosecutrix and accused persons marked as 'A,B,C,D,E&F' were sent to FSL for chemical examination, but the FSL report also does not indicate the presence of any seminal stains and human spermatozoa. Although the law is well settled that in the case of rape, 7 the conviction can be maintained even on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim if her evidence inspires confidence, but in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence as there are material inconsistencies in her statement with respect to commission of offence by the respondents. 16. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that accused persons/respondents are the perpetrators of the crime in question and further held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and as such, acquitted the accused persons / respondents of the said charges. 17. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons / respondents herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 18. Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons / respondents herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh