1 2025:CGHC:47185-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 348 of 2025 • X (Prosecutrix). ... Appellant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Gaukaran Sahu S/o Ramadhar Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Gram-Bhatarai, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.). … Respondents For Appellant : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/09/2025 1. The present acquittal appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.159/2024, whereby learned trial Court has SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.09.16 18:16:20 +0530 2 acquitted the accused/Respondent No.2-Gaukaran Sahu from the charge under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 17/07/2024, a written complaint was lodged by the victim (PW-1), at Police Station, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, alleging inter-alia that the accused- Respondent No.2 has committed sexual intercourse with the victim on various occasions on the false pretext of marriage with effect from 15/06/2023 upto 23/03/2024. Based on a written complaint, an FIR (Ex.P-2) bearing Crime No.795/2024 was registered against the Respondent No.2/accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. After registering the offence, the police started the investigation. During the investigation, a spot map (Ex.P-5) was prepared based upon the victim’s memorandum. After obtaining consent of the victim, she was sent for a medical examination, where the concerned Doctor has certified that the victim has suffered sexual assault. The clothes of the victim were seized and also sent for chemical examination. Thereafter, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The statements of other witnesses were also recorded, and then, the accused was arrested. The accused was also examined by a doctor, and a report was obtained. 3. After completion of usual investigation, the learned trial Court has framed the charge under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC against the accused/Respondent No.2 and after appreciating oral and 3 documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment of acquittal, has acquitted the Respondent No.2 from the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal by the Appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that though the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is very much limited, but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse, then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the judgment of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. He further submits that learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the Respondent No.2/accused on the ground that the prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent No.2 has committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. He further submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the Respondent No.2 on the ground that the victim is a consenting party. It is submitted that the learned trial Court was not justified by giving too much weightage to the minor omissions and contradictions that appeared in the prosecution evidence. As such, the acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused/Respondent No.2 deserves to be convicted for aforementioned offence. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/ Respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that learned trial Court, while considering the evidence available on record, has rightly acquitted the accused/ Respondent No.2, which warrants no interference by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 7. The Respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, based upon the report lodged by the victim (PW-1) as the Respondent No.2/accused, while alluring her on the false pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse with her on various occasions. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the victim was examined as PW-1 and, a bare perusal of her statement, particularly para 15 and 16, would show that the Respondent No.2 has developed the alleged physical relations with her consent. The victim (PW-1) has also stated in her cross-examination at para 8 that she is a married woman having two children. 8. 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, 5 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. Recently in the matter of Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Para-25 as under: "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC. the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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." 10. As the Supreme Court has held in the matter of Kistoora Ram (supra), Jafarudheen (supra), an appellate Court should interfere with an acquittal only if the trial Court's judgment is perverse, clearly illegal, or results in miscarriage of justice. In the present 6 case, the trial Court's findings are reasonable and based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 11. It is consistent that where the sole evidence of the victim is available, the victim's testimony must be reliable and entirely unimpeachable, and there should be no reason to disbelieve the victim's statement recorded. However, in the present case, due to the aforementioned circumstances, the victim's testimony and behavior do not appear to be trustworthy, and there is no adequate or satisfactory reason on record for the extremely delayed reporting of the incident. In light of the above situation, it is clear from the victim's testimony in this case that she and the accused liked each other. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had physical relations with the victim on the false pretext of marriage. 12. In the present case, the trial Court has duly considered all material aspects, including inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, delay in lodging the FIR, and the fact that the victim, who is a married woman having two children, appears to be a consenting party with regard to the alleged physical relation, which was made by the accused-Respondent No.2 continuously for a period of more than one year and arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thereby acquitted the accused-Respondent No.2 from the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of 7 IPC, by giving him benefit of doubt. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 13. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Tumane