1 2026:CGHC:20796-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 12.03.2026 05.05.2026. -- 05.05.2026 ACQA No. 99 of 2022 A B C ... Appellant Versus 1 - Raman Sharma S/o Prakas Rammurti Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o Gram and Thana Chilhati District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Thana aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2/State : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J. C.A.V. Judgment Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2021 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Additional Charge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 221/2018, whereby the accused/respondent No. 1 has been acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.04.2018, the prosecutrix submitted a written complaint to the Arang police station stating that the accused was an Education Worker (Shikshakarmi) at the Government Arundhati Devi Higher Secondary School, Arang, and lived on rent at Baba Tailors' house in Shyam Bazaar, Arang. She had met the accused a year earlier. He told her he was married and the father of two children. He asked her for her science notes, so she took them to his house. The accused was alone at home at the time, and finding her alone, the accused took advantage of her and satiated his lust upon her by committing forcible sexual intercourse in his room. When she said she would inform her mother about the incident, he told her that he was not married and would keep her as his wife. A week after this incident, the accused invited her to his house twice and had sexual intercourse with her on both occasions. The proscutrix used to ask the accused to marry her, but the accused kept delaying to which the prosecutrix continued to persuade him to marry her, to which the accused left Arang and went somewhere else. Consequently, she went to the accused home in Chilhati (Rajnandgaon) three times to find out about him. The accused's father, Rammurti Sharma, was often found at home, and when asked about the accused, he would say he was not at home. Thus, the accused, after deceiving her by promising to keep her as his wife, 3 sexually exploited her and then fled to somewhere else. The last instance of sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix had occurred eleven months earlier. She reported the incident to her mother and to her friend, Sheshnarayan Tiwari. Based on the aforementioned written complaint of the prosecutrix (Exhibit P-1), an First Information Report (Exhibit P-2) was registered against the accused at the Telibandha Police Station. During the course of the investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined by a female doctor, and a vaginal slide was collected from her. The prosecutrix's underwear was seized, and a seizure memo was prepared. The accused underwent a medical examination, and his underwear was seized, for which a seizure memo was also prepared. A spot map of the crime scene was prepared by the police and the Patwari. The prosecutrix's underwear, the vaginal slide, and the accused's underwear were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No. 1 of charges levelled against him, to which the present appeal has been filed. 4 4. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment without appreciating the material available on record. Learned trial Court has given grandness to minor contradictions and omissions and passed the impugned judgment which is bad in law and liable to be dismissed. The learned trial court has failed to properly examine and consider the documents and evidence available on record. The complainant’s Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) was conducted on 11/04/2018, and relevant material was seized from the complainant on 12/04/2018. The accused, Raman Sharma, was subsequently medically examined on 03/08/2018. On perusal of these documents, along with the judicial statement of the complainant and the statements of other prosecution witnesses, it is evident that accused No. 1, Raman Sharma, is guilty under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the acquittal order dated 27/11/2021 passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside and quashed. Learned trial Court overlooked the case of the prosecution and evidence against the accused/respondent by which the case of the prosecution is fully established against him beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the State supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submitting that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment in a cryptic and laconic manner without appreciating the material available on record and the accused/respondent No. 1 is liable to be convicted for the said offence. The impugned judgment, finding and order of acquittal passed by the 5 learned trial Court is illegal, improper, incorrect and is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for accused/respondent No. 1 supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court upon minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence rightly acquitted the respondent No. 1 of the aforesaid charge levelled against him and as such, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that charges were framed against the accused/respondent No. 1 under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. However, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No. 1 of the said charge on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the alleged act, being a major, and was engaged in a love affair with the accused/respondent No. 1 9. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that she met with the accused through Facebook. The accused/respondent No.1 was working as a Education Worker in Government Arundhati Devi Higher Secondary School, Arang, and lived on rent at Baba Tailors' house in Shyam Bazaar, Arang. She further stated that there were work-related interactions between the accused and her and she would occasionally visit his school to collect books. During one such visit, the accused informed her that he was a married man and had two children. After 6 about two weeks, the accused asked the prosecutrix to bring some notes for teaching the children and told her to come to his house as there was no one present at the school. Accordingly, the prosecutrix took the notes and went to his house, where she found the accused alone. The prosecutrix further stated that the accused said he would bring breakfast for her and, along with it, he brought some discoloured water. When the prosecutrix questioned him about it, he replied that it was old water which had become discoloured. After consuming it two or three times, the prosecutrix began to feel dizzy and informed the accused that she wanted to go home. At that moment, the accused made her lie on the bed and tried to cover her mouth and though the prosecutrix tried to scream, no one heard her voice, the accused took advantage of the situation by committing forcible sexual intercourse upon her and after that she became unconscious. In paragraph 05 of her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix stated that upon regaining consciousness, she went to the kitchen of the accused in search of a knife with the intention of ending her life. At that point, the accused told her that he was unmarried and assured her that he would keep her as his wife. After about 4–5 days, the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her mother. Thereafter, her mother went to the accused’s school to make inquiries about him, where she met the accused. Upon receiving his assurance that he would marry her daughter, she returned home. Thereafter, the accused on false pretext of marriage continued having forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and the accused continued to do so with the prosecutrix by delaying her of marriage. Being fed up with the conduct of the accused, the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint dated 11.04.2018 (Ex. P/01) against him, on 7 the basis of which an F.I.R. was registered (Ex. P/02). In her cross- examination, she admitted that she was over 18 years of age at the time of the incident and was well aware of her actions and circumstances. In para 18 of her cross-examination she admitted that the accused told her in Raipur that he would not marry her, as his parents were refusing to consent to the same. Subsequently, she intended to proceed to Arang to lodge a report against the accused; however, she was unable to do so at that time due to the deteriorating health of her brother. She denied taking money from the accused from time to time, and when the accused refused to give money, she filed a false report. 10. (PW-03) Maniram Dewangan stated that he had rented his house to the accused in 2016. When the accused vacated the premises, approximately a month later, the prosecutrix came to inquire about the accused’s whereabouts. He informed her that the accused had left the house but that he was unaware of his whereabouts. Subsequently, he came to know that the prosecutrix had lodged a report against the accused at the police station. 11. (PW-04) Dr. A.N. Toppo, has examined the prosecutrix and opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding recent sexual intercourse and gave her report vide Ex. P/11. 12. (PW-07) The mother of the prosecutrix has stated that her daughter informed her that the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. 8 13. (PW-08) Sheshnarayan Tiwari, friend of the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix apprised him of the entire incident. 14. As per the written complaint (Ex. P/01) and the F.I.R. (Ex. P/02), the alleged incident occurred on 10.05.2017, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 11.04.2018, indicating a significant delay. The stated reason for the delay was the alleged false pretext of marriage. 15. In Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), this Court interpreting the Section 90 and the Clause – Secondly in Section 375 of IPC, observed as under: - “23. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or 9 which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.” 16. In the light of the aforementioned judgment and upon a careful and detailed appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused/respondent No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court correctly observed that the statement of the prosecutrix is unreliable, particularly in view of the fact that she is a major and was a consenting party to the act attributed to the accused/respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 was acquitted of the aforesaid charge levelled against him. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011) in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2024) AIR (SC) 1252 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 10 comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, 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 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.” 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 19. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE U.K. Raju