1 2026:CGHC:6745-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 380 of 2023 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Indagaon, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ...Appellant versus • Dharmendra Kumar, S/o Digleshwar Das, aged about 24 Years, R/o Village Chitkimuda, Dhumagath, Police Station Indagaon, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate. For Respondent : None, though served. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 06.02.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 31.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, C.G., in Special Criminal Case No. 16/2022, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 366 and 376(2)(k)(n) of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, “the Act, 1989”). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.01.2022, victim, aged about 19 years, lodged a written report (Ex. P-5) at Police Station Indagaon alleging that on 11.01.2022, accused/respondent- Dharmendra, abducted AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.02.06 16:58:50 +0530 2 her on his motorcycle and took her to his house at Village Dhoomaghat, where, on the false promise of marriage, he forcibly established physical relations with her. On the following day, accused/respondent left her, stating that he would not marry her as she belongs to a Scheduled Caste. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P-5), FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered against the accused/respondent. 3. During the course of investigation, a spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-14. After obtaining the consent of victim, she was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-2 Dr. H.F. examined her and did not notice any injury on her person either internally or externally, nor did she give any definite opinion regarding forcible sexual intercourse and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-3. Vide Ex.P-9, clothes of the victim were seized. Vide Ex.P-10, caste certificate of the victim was seized. Vide Ex.P-20, underwear of the accused/respondent was seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and the FSL report has been brought on record vide Ex.P-19. 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 charges leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/victim submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent of the aforesaid charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is 3 ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-3 (victim), to establish that accused/respondent, on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her on several occasions and left her stating that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the material available on record. 8. 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.” 9. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the respondent/accused is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 10.PW-3 (victim), in her deposition, stated that she knew the respondent/accused and that in the month of January, 2022, accused/respondent took her to his house at village Gumaghat, Sagda and later dropped her at Mudagaon, from where she returned home on foot and thereafter the report was lodged at the Police Station. She further stated that accused/respondent took her to his house and established physical 4 relations with her. She also stated that her mobile number was with the accused/respondent and that they used to talk on the phone. She also stated that on 09.10.2021, at about 12:00 a.m., accused/respondent called her outside her house, whereupon she went to meet him, and thereafter he took her to a secluded place, expressed love for her and established physical relations with her. She also stated that on several occasions, accused/respondent used to come at night and take her to the fields, where he also established physical relations with her. She also stated that on 11.01.2022 at about 12:00 midnight, accused/respondent came on a motorcycle and called her outside her house. She denied the suggestion that when the accused/respondent asked her to sit on the motorcycle, she had refused to do so. In cross-examination, she admitted that the written complaint (Ex.P-5) was prepared by the Police and that she had only signed it. She further admitted that her statement before the Court was given as instructed by the Police and her family members. She also admitted that she had informed the doctor that accused/respondent had not forcibly established physical relations with her and that no inducement or promise was disclosed to the doctor. She also admitted that she had voluntarily sat on the motorcycle of the accused/respondent. She also admitted that after the first incident, she neither lodged any complaint nor informed her family members. 11.Thus, from perusal of the evidence of victim (PW-3), it is evident that there was a love affair between the victim and accused/respondent and that the victim was a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence. It is further evident that she travelled and stayed with accused/respondent 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 5 before any nearby person while travelling and staying with accused/respondent. Apart from this, victim herself admitted that she had informed the doctor (PW-2 Dr. H.F.) that accused/respondent had not forcibly established physical relations with her and as per the MLC report, PW-2 Dr. H.F. did not notice any injury on the person of the victim either internally or externally, nor did she give any definite opinion regarding forcible sexual intercourse. These circumstances indicate that the allegations of forcible acts or abduction are not established against the accused/respondent. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of the substantive offence of rape or abduction, the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 also cannot be sustained. 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 the accused/respondent of the charges levelled against him. 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/respondent of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 13.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