1 2026:CGHC:5906-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 278 of 2017 • The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Toran Lal Banjare, S/o Fuldas Banjare, aged about 35 Years, R/o Village Markamtola, Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Tarun Dadsena, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 03.02.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 27.06.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 05/2016, whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 376(1) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.02.04 17:17:25 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.01.2016, at around 2:00 p.m., victim, aged about 25 years, was taking a bath at the government boring, at that time, accused-Toran Banjare, allegedly came there, forcibly gagged her, dragged her to the house of one Itwari and after closing the door, committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that after the incident, accused/respondent fled from the spot after locking the door from outside, which was later opened by PW-2 Purushottam Gaikwad. Thereafter, the victim informed her father and brother about the incident and lodged a report on the next day, on the basis of which, FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered against the accused/respondent. 3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-8. After obtaining consent, victim was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-8 Dr. L.R. examined her and did not notice any external injury over the person of the victim and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-9. Vide Ex.P-1, victim’s petticoat was seized; vide Ex.P-2, vaginal slides of victim were seized; and vide Ex.P-3, respondent’s underwear was seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-7), no seminal spots or human spermatozoa were 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 before the concerned trial Court. The accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges leveled against him. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent of the aforementioned charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-3 (victim), which clearly establishes that on the date of the incident, accused/respondent forcibly established physical relations with her and also threatened her life. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and correctly acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges leveled against him. He further submits that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies. The victim’s testimony along with the FSL report (Ex.P-7), does not conclusively establish that any sexual assault occurred. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is well-founded and does not warrant interference by this Court. 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 4 presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10.The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent/accused is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 11.PW-3 victim stated in her deposition that in December 2015, at around 2:00 p.m., she had gone alone to take a bath at the government boring near her house. According to her, accused- Toran came there, took her to the nearby house of Itwari Gaikwad, closed the door from inside, committed rape upon her, and thereafter locked the door from outside. However, Itwari Gaikwad, at whose house the incident is alleged to have taken place, has not been examined by the prosecution. She further stated that after about half to one hour, PW-2 Purushottam opened the door, after which she returned home and informed her father (PW-4). In her cross- examination, victim admitted that the mother of Itwari and the wife of the accused are real sisters and that her father had earlier lodged a report against the accused regarding theft of paddy, which was later compromised. She further admitted that village boring is a public place used by several villagers for fetching water and bathing, and that a road adjacent to the place of occurrence is frequently used by passers-by. The houses of Vishnu, Narayan and Chaitram are situated near the place of occurrence, and her own house is directly opposite the house of Itwari. She also admitted that cries for help from Itwari’s house could be heard by nearby residents. She further admitted that if a person is dragged on the gravel road between the houses, the hands or legs may sustain abrasions or scratches. However, PW-8 Dr. L.R., who medically examined the victim did not notice any external injury on her person. She also admitted that the report of the incident was lodged only on the next morning as her father 5 was not present at home at the relevant time. Thus, although PW-3 alleged that the offence was committed, but the admissions made by her during cross-examination, the fact that the place of occurrence is a public place surrounded by houses and the absence of any injury or supporting forensic evidence create serious doubt about the alleged incident. 12. Contradicting the statement of victim (PW-3), PW-4 father of the victim, stated that on the date of the incident, in the afternoon, his daughter had gone alone to take a bath at the government boring near their house while he was present at home. When she did not return for a considerable time, he went in search of her and saw her coming near the boring wearing minimal clothing. On being questioned, she told him that accused- Toran had taken her to the house of Itwari, committed rape upon her, locked the door from inside and fled from the spot, and that subsequently Purushottam (PW-2) opened the door, whereafter both Purushottam and Toran ran away. However, PW-2 Purushottam stated that he had no knowledge about the alleged incident and also did not state that he had opened the door of the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that prior to the incident, he had lodged a report against the accused/respondent regarding theft of paddy, which was later compromised, and that due to the said dispute relations were strained and the accused/respondent was restrained from visiting his house as well as the house of Itwari. 13. Further, contradicting the statements of PW-3 (victim) and her father (PW-4), brother of the victim (PW-1) stated that when he came to village Lakhouli, victim told him that at about 1:00–1:30 p.m., she had gone to take a bath at the village boring. While she was bathing, accused/respondent- 6 Toran, came there, gagged her mouth, took her to the house of Itwari and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, son of PW-2 Purushottam opened the door of the place of occurrence. He further stated that when the victim did not return for a long time, his father (PW-4) went in search of her and saw the victim coming out from the house of Itwari. 14. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-3 (victim), PW-4 (father of the victim) and PW-1 (brother of the victim) and their statements do not corroborate with each other with regard to the alleged incident. Further, the evidence on record reveals that Itwari Gaikwad, at whose house the incident is alleged to have taken place, has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. Moreover, the evidence also indicates that the alleged place of occurrence is a public place with frequent movement of people. Had any such incident actually occurred at that place, it would certainly have come to the notice of other persons residing nearby. Apart from this, PW-8 Dr. L.R., who medically examined the victim, did not notice any external injury on her person. Further, the FSL report (Ex.P-7) also does not provide any conclusive support to the allegation of sexual assault. In view of these circumstances, the allegation of forcible sexual assault is not established against accused/respondent. The learned trial Court, after elaborately discussing and analysing the evidence led by the prosecution, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges levelled against him. 15. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion 7 that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 16. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of accused/respondent is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh