1 2025:CGHC:55167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 158 of 2015 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Badanji, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Khemeshwar Panigrahi, S/o Sant Ram Panigrahi, aged about 41 Years, R/o Brahaman Para, Kumhali, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 12.11.2025 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar, at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, in Special Sessions Case No. 31/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 454 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.05.2014, PW-2 father of the victim, lodged a report at Police Station Baungi, District Bastar stating therein that on 06.05.2014, at about 10:00 am, he was performing puja inside his house and at that time, his daughter/victim, AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.11.12 17:49:26 +0530 2 who was aged about 16 years, was working in the kitchen and when he heard her cries, he immediately left the puja rushed towards the kitchen. On reaching there, he allegedly saw the accused/respondent entering the house holding rice, turmeric (haldi) and vermilion (sindoor) in his hands and sprinkling these articles on the face of the victim. It is alleged that accused/respondent caught hold of the hands of victim and forcibly dragged her. Seeing this, he also raised an alarm and on hearing the commotion, the accused/respondent tried to flee from the house, but he apprehended him in the courtyard. Thereafter, his wife, son and neigbhours arrived at the spot. On the basis of said information, FIR (Ex.P-1) has been registered against the accused/respondent. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4. The victim was sent for medical examination and PW-5 Dr. V.T. examined her and gave his MLC report vide Ex.P-5. Vide Ex.P-3, High School Certificate of victim was seized and the accused/respondent was taken into custody vide Ex.P-8. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-respondent before the concerned trial Court. Accused-respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 12 documents. 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 charges leveled against him. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent of the said charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is a cogent and sufficient evidence available on record, particularly the testimonies of PW-1 victim, PW-2 her father and PW-3 her mother, which clearly establish the case of the prosecution. Thus, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent without properly appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, and their statements do not corroborate each other. He further submits that there is no cogent or clinching evidence on record to suggest that the accused/respondent is the author of the crime in question. Therefore, the learned trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence on record, rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in his acquittal. Hence, the appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. 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:- 4 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.” 10. PW-1 victim has stated in her deposition that on the date of the incident, she was helping her mother/PW-3 in the kitchen, however, PW-3 mother of the victim, admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of the incident, she was not present in the kitchen but was in another room, whereas in FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by PW-2 father of the victim, it is mentioned that PW-3 mother of the victim and brother of the victim (Manish) were inside the house and came out after the incident. The victim has further stated that during that time, the accused/respondent came there and sprinkled turmeric, rice and vermilion on her face and thereafter caught hold of her hands and started dragging her, saying that he would marry her. Contrary to this version, PW-2 father of the victim, has not stated in his deposition that the accused/respondent caught hold of the hands of the victim or dragged her forcibly. The victim further stated that when she started shouting, her father (PW-2), who was performing Puja at that time, came there and took her towards the verandah, but on the contrary, PW-2 father of the victim has stated that after hearing the screams of his wife and daughter, he came there, whereas PW-3 the mother of the victim has stated that she went to the room to call her husband (PW-2). In cross-examination, victim (PW-1) admitted that she used to address the accused/respondent as “Bade Papa” and that both families used to visit 5 each other’s houses. She further admitted that the accused/respondent himself came to her house and asked for tea, and that her mother (PW-3) made tea and served it to him, but PW-3 mother of the victim denied having made or served tea to the accused/respondent. The victim also admitted that during Rashmi’s marriage, a dispute had arisen between her father, uncle, and the accused/respondent and that her family was on one side while the accused/respondent was on the other side. She also admitted that at the time of the incident, her aunt (Bua)- Jaimani was present in the house, but Jaimani was not examined by the prosecution. She further admitted that 5-6 family members and relatives were present at the time of the incident. The victim also admitted that her face and clothes were smeared with turmeric, vermilion and rice, but these articles were not seized by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. She also admitted that the accused/respondent had been present in her house for 10-20 minutes prior to the incident and that everything was peaceful at that time, however, PW-2 her father, stated that the accused/respondent had been present much earlier before the incident, whereas PW-3 her mother, admitted that the accused/respondent was present in their house about an hour before the incident. 11. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of PW-1 (prosecutrix), PW-2 (her father) and PW-3 (her mother) and their statements do not corroborate with each other and the contents of the FIR (Ex. P-1) with regard to the presence of the accused/respondent in their house with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim. 6 Furthermore, PW-2 father of the victim and PW-3 mother of the victim admitted that rice, turmeric, and vermilion are ordinarily kept in the Puja room and placed on a plate during Puja and there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused/respondent brought these articles with him. The victim also admitted that she used to call the accused/respondent as “Bade Papa” and that both families used to visit each other’s houses. Moreover, PW-2 the father of the victim, further admitted that he was already angry with the accused/respondent because of a quarrel that had taken place a few days earlier at Rashmi’s marriage, during which the accused/respondent had driven him away from the dinner. This indicates that there existed prior enmity and strained relations between the two families. In such circumstances, the allegation that the accused/respondent entered the kitchen, sprinkled rice, turmeric and vermilion on the face of the victim and forcibly dragged her appears to be doubtful. Besides, the aunt of the victim (Bua- Jaimani), who was allegedly present at the time of the incident and her brother (Manish), who reached the spot immediately, were not examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. 12. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire material on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges leveled against him. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, I am of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused / 7 respondent herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of accused/respondent is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh