1 2025:CGHC:43005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 117 of 2020 Meena Khunte W/o Late Shri Ashwani Kumar Khunte, Aged About 40 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o - Ram Sagarpara, Korba, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Ajak, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 -Kumar Singh Patel S/o Late Shri Ram Patel, Aged About 42 Years Permanent R/o Chandra Nagar, Jatraj Ward No. 54, Police Station Kotwali, Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Village Libra, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (accused). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 25/08/2025: 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District- Korba (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.46/2017 whereby, Respondent No.2/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 448, 354, 506 (Part 2) of IPC and Sections AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.26 17:44:38 +0530 2 3 (1) (w) & 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter “the Act, 1989”). 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant, aged about 42 years, a widow lady lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) with the police station Ajak, Korba on 09th August, 2017 stating that in the evening of 08.08.2017, at about 6:00 pm, when she was in her house, Respondent No.2/accused who works in the department of LIC, entered into her house and sexually molested her. When she protested for such act, Respondent No.2/accused threatened to kill her. 3. FIR was registered vide Ex.P/11 on 23.10.2017 with the police station Scheduled Caste Welfare, Korba. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P/2. 4. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the jurisdictional Magistrate vide Ex.P/3 as the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste category, her caste certificate (Ex.P/6) was seized vide Ex.P/5. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 6. During trial, Respondent No.2/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and exhibited eleven documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/11. 8. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Respondent No.2/accused pleaded false implication and did not adduce any defence evidence. 9. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, 3 acquitted the Respondent No.2/accused of the charges as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this Appeal. 10.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, therefore, this Appeal may be allowed. 11.Counsel for the State submits that State has not preferred any Appeal. 12.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 13.Learned trial Court, took into consideration the serious contradictions and omissions in the statements of victim (PW-1), her son (PW-2) and one material witness namely Prakhar Son (PW-6) and also the fact that earlier also, victim had lodged a complaint against the respondent/accused for committing rape with her. However, Respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge in the said case and the Court had also registered an offence against the victim for giving false evidence before the Court. The said case was pending at the time of initiating the present complaint. 14.The present incident occurred in the police colony but no witness heard the hue and cry of the victim. Further, the victim herself developed the story as she has not mentioned the name of son of the respondent/accused in her written complaint (Ex.P/1), but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/3), she has stated that son of the respondent/accused also came with a knife and both (respondent/accused and his son) threatened to kill her. Victim has stated in similar terms before the Court but the said fact is material omission in 4 the written complaint (Ex.P/1). 15. Learned trial Court also found the conduct of the victim to be unnatural as she lodged an FIR against the respondent/accused for committing rape with her and upon seeing the respondent/accused in her colony, she did not close the doors of her house. Even she admits that the door was opened. Son of the appellant (PW-2) is a hearsay witness as he came to know about the incident from Prakhar Son (PW-6) who also admits in his cross-examination that he has not seen the incident and has given the statement according to the victim. 16.Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 17.Considering the aforesaid infirmities, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court culminating into acquittal of the respondent/accused is just and proper and no interference is warranted. 18. Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash