1 2025:CGHC:58169-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.9 of 2013 1 – Ramashankar, S/o Charkuram Aged About 46 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Makarbandha, PS Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Urmila D/o Ramashankar Aged About 14 Years R/o Village Makarbandha, PS Ramanujnagar, Distt. - Surajpur, C.G. (Being Minor Through The Natural Guardian Father Appellant No.1) Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Ramanujnagar, Distt. – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Ramvilas, S/o Nohar Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Makarbandha, PS Ramanujnagar, Distt. - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, GA For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 01/12/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.09.2012 passed by learned 1st Upper Session Judge, Surajpur (C.G.) in Session Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Case No.13/2012, whereby the respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charges under Section 376 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused/respondent No.2 was alleged to have committed forcible sexual intercourse with the proscutrix on 09.12.2011 when she was returning to her home from the field, thereafter the matter was reported to the police station concerned, upon which a case was registered against the respondent No.2 and he was arrested. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.2. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its true and correct prospective and the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondent No.2, but despite the same the accused respondent has been acquitted. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the medical evidence, whereas the doctor has clearly deposed that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. The learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 3 judgment and finding of the learned Court below is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused respondent No.2 beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its true perspective and has wrongly acquitted the respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly statement of the prosecutrix and rightly acquitted the respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges. The prosecution has also not filed any document regarding the age of the prosecutrix. Thus, looking to the limited scop of interference in the acquittal appeal, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 376 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 from the said charges. 4 8. The learned Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix below 16 years of age and also statements of the prosecutrix are not reliable and medical report also not supported the prosecution case and accordingly acquitted the respondent No.2. 9. It is clear from the record of learned Trial Court that as per prosecution on the date of incident prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. The prosecution has only filed photocopy of marksheet of Class 5th of prosecutrix and no admission register or birth certificate was filed by the prosecution. 10. PW-1 prosecutrix stated that they are 6 brothers and sisters and she is of 4th number’s child and 3 sisters are elder to her, out of whom two have got married whereas one is unmarried and she is 3 year’s older to her. 11. PW-2 mother of prosecutrix stated that the prosecutrix is her 4th number’s daughter and two elderly daughters have got married, whereas one has not got married. She denied this suggestion that the age of the prosecutrix is 20 years. 12. Dr. Suchita Kindo (PW-4) recorded the age of the prosecutrix as 14 years and in cross-examination she admitted that she wrote her age as per assumption and she did not advise for age determination test of the prosecutrix. The prosecution did not file any legally admissible evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix, as such the prosecution has failed to prove the age of 5 the prosecutrix below 16 years of age at the time of incident. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix below 16 years of age at the time of incident. 13. Now this Court has to see whether the accused/respondent No.2 has committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix or not? 14. The prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that on the date of incident, the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her when she was returning from the field, thereafter she filed written complaint (Ex-P/1) and FIR (Ex-P/2). In the cross-examination, she admitted that there is quarrel between her family and the accused. 15. PW-2 mother of the prosecutrix stated that the prosecutrix told her about the incident. In the cross-examination, she admitted that there is land dispute between the accused and them and the case is pending before the Court. 16. PW-3 Niranjan stated that the father of the prosecutrix had told him about the incident. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he does not know about the incident personally. 17. PW-4 Dr. Suchita Kindo examined the prosecutrix and she opined that she did not find any external injury on her body but in internal examination she found pain and swelling and hymen was ruptured. She also opined that she found sign of the forcible sexual intercourse on the body of the prosecutrix. She prepared 6 slide and sent the same for chemical examination. In the cross- examination, she admitted that it is true that she did not tell the period of intercourse, whereas no FSL report was filed by the prosecution. 18. Looking to the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother, it is clear that they themselves admitted that there is previous enmity between them and the respondent No.2. The learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and found that the statements of the prosecutrix are not reliable. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all vidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the 7 acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra), it is clear that the learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent No.2. This finding recorded by the Trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 21. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Judge Nirala