1 2025:CGHC:58497-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3671 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Dadhi, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Sukhdev Chandrakar S/o Pirathi Lal Chandrakar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Gidhva, Police Station- Dadhi, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the petitioner/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the instant petition. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.03 15:13:15 +0530 2 application and accordingly, I.A. No.01 is allowed and delay of 35 days in filing the instant petition is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.07.2025 passed in Session Trial No.02 of 2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bemetara (C.G.), whereby the learned First Additional Session Judge has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(i)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO Act”) as well as Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “Atrocities Act”) holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, a crime (Ex.P-9) got registered under Section 64 of BNS & under Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act against the accused on the report of the victim's mother to the effect that on 02.11.2024 her daughter/victim went to toilet in Nahar side. At around 07:30 pm, her younger daughter told her that the accused Sukhdev Chandrakar had also gone to the Nahar side. Then she and her younger daughter went to the Nahar side and saw that the accused Sukhdev Chandrakar was on top of her daughter/victim and was having physical relations with her and when she tried to stop him by holding his collar, he pushed her and ran away and when she asked her daughter/victim, she told her that when she was going to toilet, Sukhdev 3 Chandrakar forcibly threw her down in the field, opened her jeans and panties and raped her. Her daughter/victim was forcefully raped by accused Sukhdev Chandrakar. 5. During the course of investigation, the police has recorded the victim's statement. The accused had abducted the victim and established physical relations with her several times on the pretext of marriage. The statements of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, in view of the statement of the victim, during the investigation, the police has added the Section 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act in the present crime against the accused. The police arrested the accused and after completion of investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet before the jurisdictional criminal Court and copy of the challan was supplied to the accused as envisaged under Section 230 of the BNSS. 6. The charges against the accused were duly framed by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 09.01.2025. Thereafter, the same were read over and explained to the accused in detail, ensuring that he fully understood the nature and particulars of the allegations leveled against him. Upon being informed of the charges, the accused entered a plea of ‘not guilty’ and opted to face trial. 7. In order to establish the commission of the alleged offences, the prosecution presented a comprehensive case by examining a total of 10 4 witnesses, each of whom provided testimony relevant to the material facts in issue. In addition, the prosecution tendered various documents and other pieces of evidence, which were marked and relied upon to substantiate the charges and corroborate the statements made by the witnesses, thereby seeking to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2025, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 9. Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/petitioner assailing the judgment of acquittal, submits that though the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, yet the appellate Court possesses ample powers to reappraise the evidence on record. If such reappraisal reveals that the findings of the trial Court are unjust, perverse or contrary to the evidence, the appellate Court is fully empowered to set aside the acquittal and record conviction against the accused. He further submits that the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent from the offences charged, despite sufficient evidence on record establishing his guilt. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and other prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective and 5 unduly relied upon surmises and conjectures. The trial Court was not justified in discarding the evidence of the prosecution without any strong or valid reasons. 10. Mr. Baghel further submits that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, along with the conduct of the accused respondent, clearly demonstrate his ill-intention, which warranted appropriate conviction. The Trial Court overlooked the principle that while minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses may occur, the circumstances of the case are incapable of fabrication. In the present case, the accused respondent abducted and forcibly committed sexual assault upon the prosecutrix without her consent. The learned Trial Judge committed an error of law in disbelieving the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and acquitting the respondent merely on the basis of minor omissions and discrepancies, thereby misappreciating the evidence and arriving at erroneous findings. 11. It is contended by Mr. Baghel that the Trial Court further failed to appreciate that the accused respondent committed the offence as alleged and that all mandatory procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code were duly complied with by the investigating authorities. A perusal of the record establishes that the alleged offence was committed by the accused and that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court also failed to take into account the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused, particularly in light of the evidence of PW-2, the mother of the victim, 6 who was an eyewitness to the crime. The Court disregarded the admission register (Ex.P-33), which clearly establishes that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident, being 16 years, 2 months, and 26 days old. 12. Mr. Baghel lastly contends that it is well settled that a conviction in rape cases can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. In the instant case, the evidence of PW-1 is cogent, reliable, and confidence-inspiring, and there is no reason to discard it. Although the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, the appellate Court possesses ample powers to reappraise the evidence on record. If such reappraisal reveals that the findings of the Trial Court are unjust, perverse, or contrary to the evidence, this Court is fully empowered to set aside the acquittal and record conviction against the accused. As such, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge is wholly unsustainable and ought to be set aside, and the accused respondent be convicted in accordance with law. 13. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 14. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bemetara (C.G.), while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 41 to 46 as follows: “41. Perusal of the whole testimony of the victim (P.W. 1) would demonstrate that the victim was acquainted with the accused on instagram and was having an affair with him and also had 7 physical relation with him two months before the incident and made no complaint to anyone in that regard since it was not seen by someone, however, the present incident reported since it was seen by the victim's mother and sister. The victim's has deposed that there was a threat from the side of the accused, however, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt since it was not reported to the police at the previous occasion. P.W. 8 Dr. Chandrakiran Rajput (Medical Officer) has stepped into the witness box and proved the victim's medical examination report which is Ex.P41. She found no external internal injuries on the victim's body examination, however, she found that the victim's hymen was torn. 42. Thus, cumulative effect of re-appreciation of the prosecution case would demonstrate that the victim was a consenting party to establish physical relations with the accused and considering the fact that the prosecution has brought on record no sufficient admissible evidence to prove that on the date of the incident, the victim girl was below the age of consent. Therefore, In view of above, the prosecution has failed to prove the fary beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has ever committed the rape with the victim or commits penetrative sexual assault on the victim since it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was under the age of the consent at the time leaving the house and it has already proved that the victim was a consenting party to establish physical relations with the accused. The 8 prosecution has proved the victim's caste certificate (Article-A2) however, the caste certificate would not a sufficient factor to prove the offence under 3 (2) (V) of SC & ST Act unless and until other ingredients of the offence be proved. Perusal of the file would demonstrated that there is no sufficient evidence available to held guilty the accused under afore-mentioned sections. So, in view of above, it would not be safe to convict the accused on merely conjectures and surmises. 4. In Satyanarayana Murthy vs The Distt Insp. of Police, Cr31/109,14.09.15, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has recently observed as follows:- Suspicion however grave cannot take place of proof- Prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in domain of "must be" true to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. 44. It is now well settled that onus lies upon the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused. There is a long way to travel between "may be true" and "must be true" and this whole distance has to be travelled by the prosecution. The conviction cannot be based on mere assumptions and presumptions. 45. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion and keeping in view of totality of facts, this court is of considered view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and therefore, it would be in 9 interest of justice if the benefit of doubt be extended to the accused. 46. Point no. 2:- In view of my above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 64(2)(i)(m) & 65(1) of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, Section 6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & under Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act. Therefore, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused and he is hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against him.” 15. Upon a careful perusal of the record and taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara (C.G.), whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences alleged against him, we do not find any infirmity or legal error in the impugned order of acquittal. The learned trial Court has meticulously examined the evidence on record, including the testimony of the witnesses and the documents relied upon by the prosecution, and has applied its mind judiciously in arriving at the conclusion of acquittal. In the absence of any demonstrable illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order, there is no ground to exercise the discretionary power to grant leave to appeal in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 16. 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:- 10 "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." 17. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, it is evident that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to appeal is wholly devoid of any merit. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error, illegality, or perversity in the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara (C.G.). In view of the careful appreciation of evidence, the findings recorded by the trial Court, and the absence of any compelling circumstances warranting interference, the present petition is, therefore, liable to be and is hereby rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu