1 2026:CGHC:4578-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 340 of 2023 • XYZ ...Appellant/Victim versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Chandanu, District Bemetara (C.G.). 2. Vinesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Ramavatar Sahu, aged about 21 Years, R/o Village Ghatholi, P.S. Chandanu, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 28.01.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Heard on admission. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/victim arises out of the judgment dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C (POCSO) Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G. in Sessions Case No.19/2023, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the charges under Section 376(2)(j)(n) & 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, ‘the Act, 2012’). AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.01.29 16:47:25 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.05.2023, victim lodged a written report (Ex.P-7) at Police Station Chandanu, alleging therein that accused/respondent No.2 repeatedly contacted her and despite her refusal, promised to marry her. On 19.03.2022, he called her to a storeroom and forcible established physical relations with her and also threatened her to life if she disclosed the incident to anyone. It is further alleged that on 03.03.2023, accused/respondent No.2 took her from the house and kept her at his residence for two months and during this period, he allegedly assaulted her and forcibly established physical relations with her on multiple occasions and also threatened her to life. Thereafter, on 23.05.2023, she somehow escaped from the house of accused/respondent No.2, returned to her house and informed her family members about the incident. On the basis of said written report (Ex.P-7), FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered against accused/respondent No.2. 3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-5. After obtaining the consent of the victim and her parents, victim was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-4 Dr. J.J. examined her and did not notice any injury on the person of the victim either internally or externally nor did she find any sign of forcible sexual intercourse and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-18. Vide Ex.P-3, Dakhil-Kharij Register of victim was seized. Vide Ex.P-26, vaginal swab and smear slides were seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-31), no human spermatozoa was found on the seized articles. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent No.2 before the concerned trial Court. The accused/respondent No.2 abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 3 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of charges leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/victim submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-2 (victim), to establish that victim was minor and that accused/respondent No.2, on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her on several occasions and also threatened her to life. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State supports the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/victim. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 4 10.The first question for consideration before this Court is whether the learned trial Court is justified in holding that victim/prosecutrix was not below 18 years of age on the date of the incident. 11.In order to ascertain the age of the victim, she was examined as PW-2. In her evidence, she admitted that she is stating her date of birth as 21.07.2005 as recorded in her school certificate, however, she did not know on what basis her parents had enrolled her in the school. She further admitted that the ration card (Ex.D-1), issued in the name of her mother, contains the names and ages of all family members and records her age as 19 years. She also admitted that the said ration card was renewed on 28.08.2019 and confirmed that the photographs affixed on Exs.D-1 and D-2 are her own. Further PW-1 father of the victim, admitted that Ex.D-1 is an online ration card issued in the name of his wife, which records the victim’s age as 19 years and that it was renewed on 28.08.2019. He also confirmed that the photograph appearing on the said ration card is of the victim. He further admitted that he has three children, of whom the eldest daughter is approximately 35 years old, the second child (son) is approximately 32 years old and the youngest is the victim. Moreover, PW-3 mother of the victim, admitted that she had recorded the age of the victim in the village school on the basis of guesswork and that the date of birth of the victim stated by her in Court is also based on guesswork. PW-5 Shivraj Dhruw, Head Master of Government Primary School, Ghatoli, also admitted that in the year 2005, when parents were unable to provide the exact age of their children, the date of birth used to be recorded in the school register on the basis of guesswork. 12. Thus, the above evidence clearly shows that although the date of birth of victim in Dakhil-Kharij Register (Ex.P-21C) was recorded as 21.07.2005, 5 but the same was entered on the basis of guesswork by mother of the victim (PW-3) and, therefore, cannot be treated as reliable evidence. No other official document, such as a birth certificate or age determination certificate, was produced by the prosecution to establish the age of the victim. The defence produced Ex.D-1, online family ration card, which is an official document reflecting the victim’s age as 19 years. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid evidence and the entries made in the ration card (Ex.D-1), it is evident that the victim was major at the time of the alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident. The learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, was fully justified in holding that the victim was major at the relevant time. Accordingly, the said finding recorded by the learned trial Court is affirmed. 13.Next question for consideration is whether the respondent No.2/accused is the author of the crime in question. 14.PW-1 (victim) stated in her deposition that on 19.03.2022, accused/respondent No.2 sent a message to her father’s mobile phone asking her to meet him behind the house at about 11:00 p.m. Being influenced by his words, she went to the storeroom situated behind her house and deleted the said message from her father’s mobile phone. She further stated that whenever she went to meet accused at his request, he established physical relations with her. She also stated that on 01.03.2023, at the call of the accused, she went to the storeroom behind her house between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., where her brother saw her in the company of the accused. On seeing her brother, accused fled from the spot. Thereafter, she disclosed the incident to her family members. She also 6 stated that on 03.03.2023, accused came to her house and forcibly took her to his house in presence of her family members and kept her there for about two months. In cross-examination, she admitted that she used to quietly go to the garden to meet accused/respondent No.2 so that her family members would not come to know about it. She further admitted that she became nervous after her brother and other family members came to know about the incident. She also admitted that when accused took her away in the presence of her family members, none of them raised any objection or said anything to accused/respondent No.2. She further admitted that the entire village was aware of her two-month stay at the accused’s house. She also admitted that during her stay there, she used to perform daily household chores while accused/respondent No.2 went out for work. She also admitted that she used to secretly talk to accused on a touchscreen mobile phone given by him and kept the phone on silent or vibration mode so that her parents would not come to know about it. She also admitted that no incident took place between 19.03.2022 and 27.05.2023. 15. Likewise, father of the victim (PW-1) admitted that firstly his son came to know about a relationship between the accused and his daughter victim and thereafter they both scolded the victim. He further admitted that when the accused forcibly took his daughter and kept her at his house for about two months, he did not lodge any report with the police against the accused. He also admitted that during this period, he used to go out for work and to purchase goods from the market, however, no report was made against the accused. He also admitted that the victim used to go to the storeroom at night without informing the family. 7 Furthermore, PW-3 mother of the victim, stated that during the period when the victim was staying at the accused’s house, the family members did not lodge any report with the police against the accused/respondent No.2. 16.Thus, from perusal of above evidence, it is quite vivid that there was a love affair between the victim and accused/respondent No.2 and that victim was a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence. It is further evident that she stayed with accused/respondent No.2 at his residence on her own free will. No resistance was offered by her during the course of such stay, nor did she lodge any complaint or raise any alarm before any nearby person while staying with accused/respondent No.2. Apart from this, parents of the victim also admitted that they did not lodge any report against accused/respondent No.2 during the period when the victim was staying with him. Rather, it appears that a report was lodged only after a quarrel took place between the victim and accused/respondent No.2 and that victim herself admitted in her evidence that no incident took place between 19.03.2022 and 27.05.2023. That apart, no report has been lodged by either victim or her family members against accused/respondent No.2 that he used to threaten them to life. These circumstances clearly indicate that the allegations of forcible acts are not established against accused/respondent No.2. The learned trial Court, after elaborately discussing and analyzing the evidence led by the prosecution, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted accused/respondent No.2 of the charges leveled against him. 17.After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion 8 that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 18.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/victim against the acquittal of accused/respondent No.2 is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh