1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 136 of 2018 Judgment Reserved on 02.12.2025 Judgment Reserved on 15.12.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Patna, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Bharat Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Jagarnath Kushwaha, aged about 26 Years, R/o Village Kochila, P.S. Patna, Distict Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shiv Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Late Bhagirathi Kushwaha, aged about 40 Years, R/o Chopan (Khalpara) P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ram Gopal Kushwaha, S/o Ramnarayan Kushwaha, aged about 35 Years, R/o Village Badsera, (Jhanjharimuda), P. S. Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Rupendra Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Ram Prasad Kushwaha, aged about 25 Years, R/o Sirsi (Junapara) P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : None for the respondent. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the State arises out of the judgment dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 56/2016, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 of the charges under Section 366 read AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.12.15 14:45:24 +0530 2 with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, and further acquitted respondent No. 1- Bharat Kumar Kushwaha of the charge under Section 323 of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.08.2015, the victim, who is a major girl, lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) alleging that on 03.03.2015 at about 7:00 a.m., the present respondents abducted her, took her to an unknown place and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one. On the basis of above report, Police Station Patna, District Koriya, registered the aforesaid offences against the accused persons/respondents. During investigation, a spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4 and the victim was sent for medical examination, where PW- 8 Dr. S.B. examined her and did not notice any signs of sexual intercourse with the victim and gave the MLC report vide Ex.P-12. Vide Ex.P-3, vaginal slides of the victim were seized and sent to the FSL for chemical examination and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-23), no human spermatozoa was found on the seized slides. 3. 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 the guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons / respondents herein of the said charges leveled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons / respondents 3 of the said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is ample evidence on record to establish that at the time of the incident, present respondents abducted the victim and committed the alleged acts with the victim and despite this, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. PW-6 father of the victim has stated that on 03.03.2015, his daughter/victim went missing from school and despite his search at several places, she could not be traced out. Two to three days later, he came to know that the victim was staying with accused- Bharat at village Kochila, whereupon he lodged a missing report at Police Station Patna. He has further stated that he along with Ramlakhan (PW-2) and some villagers, went to the house of accused- Bharat, but when he tried to bring his daughter/victim back, accused- Bharat showed him certain alleged marriage documents between him and the victim. Thereafter, he returned home and informed the police, who brought both the victim and accused- Bharat to the police station, where they stated that they had married voluntarily. After that, his signatures were obtained on the recovery panchnama (Ex.D-1) and supurdnama (Ex.D-2), by which, the police handed over the victim to accused- Bharat. 8. PW-2 Ramlakhan Kushwaha has stated that accused- Bharat and the victim had left home on 03.03.2015 and returned on 05.03.2015. He has further stated that when he asked the victim to return home, she refused, 4 saying that she had married accused- Bharat and would commit suicide if forced to leave him. He has also stated that the victim had been living in the house of accused- Bharat as his wife for 5–6 months. He has further stated that while staying at her aunt’s house, the victim had demanded either Rs.2 lakh or transfer of land from accused- Bharat, and that co-accused Ramgopal, Shivkumar, and Rupendra had advised her to stay with accused- Bharat, due to which, she became annoyed with them. He has also stated that the victim had once quarrelled with accused- Bharat over transfer of land in her name and had even got him arrested at the police station. 9. PW-1 victim has stated that on 05.03.2015, her father (PW-6), PW-2 Ramlakhan and other villagers had come to the house of accused- Bharat, but she refused to accompany them and thereafter her parents informed the police, upon which, she and accused- Bharat were called to the police station, where she signed the Baramdagi Panchnama (Ex.D-1) and after this, the police sent her back with accused- Bharat on Supurdnama (Ex.D-2) and she returned to his house. She has further stated that she lived in the house of accused- Bharat as his wife for about six months and that his house is situated about 100 meters away from her father’s house. 10. PW-12 J.S. Kanwar, the Investigating Officer, has stated that when the victim was recovered, she declared herself to be a major and stated that she had married accused- Bharat and expressed her desire to live with him, and accordingly, she was handed over to accused- Bharat. He has further stated that during investigation, he found that co-accused persons, namely, Ramgopal and Rupendra had not taken the victim to village Chaupan and were not present there. He has further stated that the house of co-accused- Shivkumar in village Chaupan consisted of only one room, 5 where his wife, mother and two children were living, and since no incident was found to have occurred there, no spot map was prepared. He has also stated that at the time of recovery, in the presence of her parents and village members, the victim repeatedly expressed her desire to stay with accused- Bharat and even threatened to commit suicide if separated from him. 11. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it appears that the victim had married accused- Bharat and had voluntarily chosen to live with him. She consistently refused to return to her parents and even threatened to commit suicide if separated from him, which is also corroborated from the statements of PW-6 father of the victim, PW-2 Ramlakhan and PW-12 J.S. Kanwar, the Investigating Officer. The evidence on record further shows that she had stayed with accused- Bharat for about 5–6 months on her own free will and only thereafter lodged the alleged report against the accused persons, which appears to be an afterthought. Additionally, the testimony of PW-6 father of the victim indicates that he was not in favour of the marriage between the victim and accused-Bharat and there had been disputes between them on this issue, which is also supported by the document (Ex.D-5), a report submitted by the victim (naming herself as ‘Smt. [name of the victim]’ and accused-Bharat as her husband) before the Police Station against her parents and sister, wherein she stated that she had married accused-Bharat on 04.03.2015 on her own free will and on account of this, her parents and sister always keep talking about abusing and beating her. Moreover, there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of victim with respect to the alleged acts and her statement does not corroborate with the contents of FIR (Ex.P-1) and the other documents (Exs.D-1, D-2 & D-5C) as well as the evidence of PW-12 J.S. Kanwar, Investigating Officer. These factors clearly indicate 6 that the alleged abduction and commission of forcible acts are not established against the accused persons. The learned trial Court, after elaborately discussing and analyzing the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges leveled against them. 12. 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 of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 13. Accordingly, the appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh