1 2026:CGHC:835-DB 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 --- ---- -- 15.01.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 260 of 2021  XYZ. ... Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Station House Officer, Police Station – Kabirdham (Kawardha), District Kabirdham (C.G.). 2. Amit Kumar Goutam, son of Salikram Goutam, aged about 35 years, resident of Ward No.8, Shikshak Nagar, Kawardha, Krishna Vihar Colony, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, Advocate For Res. No.1/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Govt. Advocate For Res. No.2 : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate DB : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal 2 Judgment on Board (07.01.2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the victim/appellant against the judgment dated 05.08.2021 passed in Special Sessions Case No.62/2019 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Act, 2012, F.T.C., Kabirdham (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 herein from the charge punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Section 06 of POCSO Act. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.05.2019, the victim/appellant herein submitted a written complaint at Police Station Kabirdham to the effect that for the past one year, accused/respondent No.1 Amit Gautam had been following her while victim/appellant was going to and returning from coaching classes. Accused/respondent No.1 had obtained victim/appellant’s mobile number and used to harass her by calling repeatedly and asking her to meet him. The accused/respondent No.2 used to threaten her over the phone that if she did not come to meet him, he would inform her parents. In the month of May, 2018, accused/respondent No.2 called the victim/appellant to his 3 house in the evening at about 7–8 p.m., forcibly took her into his room, threw her onto the bed, and by threatening to kill her, established physical relations with her against her will. Accused/respondent No.2 used to tell her that he would marry her once she attained the age of 18 years. In the first week of April 2019 also, accused/respondent No.2 forcibly established physical relations with victim/appellant at his house. The accused/respondent No.2 despite knowing that the victim/appellant was a minor, used to intimidate and threaten her, call her to his house, and, by giving false assurance of marriage, forcibly established physical relations with her from May 2018 to April 2019. On the basis of the said report of the victim/appellant, an FIR being Crime No. 225/2019 was registered under Sections 376 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, against the accused/respondent No.2 and the case was taken up for investigation. The prosecution story further states that during the course of investigation, spot map was prepared; statements of the victim/appellant and witnesses were recorded; documents relating to proof of the age of the victim were collected; the victim and her undergarments were sent for examination; Patwari prepared spot map and seizure proceedings were carried out. The accused/respondent No.2 was arrested and information regarding his arrest was given to his family members. 4 4. After completing due investigation, charge sheet under Sections 376, 506 (B) of IPC and Sections 5 & 6 of POCSO Act was filed against the accused/respondents before the jurisdictional Court followed by charge under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The accused/respondent No.2 however denied the charge and pleaded for trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent No.2 was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondent pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. One defence witness was also examined in the case. 6. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the charge under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Section 06 of POCSO Act. Hence, this appeal by the State. 7. Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the victim/appellant submits that even though there is emphatic and uncontroverted evidence of the Prosecutrix (PW/2), the learned trial Court wrongly acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 herein. He further submits that the Prosecutrix (PW/2) has categorically stated about the 5 incident but the learned trial Court by ignoring the material piece of evidence and by disbelieving the evidence of Prosecutrix (PW/2), acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 herein on assumption of facts that there is grudge against accused/respondent No.2. He also submits that the learned trial Court committed grave error in discarding the entire case of the prosecution merely on the minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. As such, the instant acquittal appeal deserves to be admitted. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Govt. Advocate/respondent No.1 and Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for accused/respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 376, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the said the charges. 11. Prosecutrix (PW-2) has stated that the accused/respondent No.2 was following her when she used to go to tuition and used to say that he loves her and wants to marry. She has 6 also stated that when she went with a boy who was residing in her house on rent, the accused/respondent No.2, after seeing her with that boy, came to her house in drunken condition at night and created nuisance calling her name. She has also stated that when she came out of her house due to fear of their parents, then accused/appellant caught hold of her neck, assaulted her and pushed her away. She has also stated that when she fell on the ground, the accused was strangulating her neck and then threw her into a bush of thorns. She has also stated that on 04.05.2019 at evening, when she went out of the house to play, the accused intercepted her on the way. The accused was under intoxicated condition, quarreled with her, took her in his car on the pretext of treatment, but he took her to his house and committed rape with her. She has also stated that when she reached her house at around 8.30 PM, she was crying, on this her mother asked as to what had happened but she did not disclosed the incident due to fear and after 3-4 days, she filed written complaint (Ex.P-2) followed by FIR (Ex.P-3) against the accused. In cross- examination, the prosecutrix has admitted that she did not make any report of the incident of strangling her neck and pushing her in to bush of thorns by the accused. The prosecutrix has admitted this suggestion of defence that Madhulika, wife of accused, had filed complaint against her 7 that she set on fire the Activa vehicle after pouring kerosene. The Prosecutrix has also admitted that the Superintendent of Police had called her and her father but she went to Police Station Kawardha on 08.05.2019 as she had gone to attend the marriage in Khairagarh on 07.05.2019. She has also admitted this suggestion of defence that accused’s wife Madhulika staged a protest demanding action on her report. She has denied this suggestion that she filed a false complaint against the accused after conspiring with her parents as she was apprehending her implication in the incident of setting on fire the Activa of accused’s wife and house trespassing, however, it is clear from the written complaint (Ex.P-2) and FIR (Ex.P-3) made by the prosecutrix, that the date of incident was 12.03.2018 and the date of report is 10.05.2019 and the cause of delay in filing the FIR was written as ‘due to social consideration’. Other prosecution witnesses have also supported the defence of accused/respondent No.2 and defence witness Madhulika (DW-1) has stated that on 05.05.2019 she along with her husband/accused and children went to Jabalpur and when they came back to their house on 06.05.2019, she saw that their vehicle Scooty parked in the porch was in burnt condition and the smell of kerosene was coming from the burnt scooty. She has also stated that her sister-in-law, who 8 lived with her family in front of their house, was standing in front of their house told them that the the girl who had come here earlier, had thrown stones etc. and had broken flower pots, had come and jumped over the gate and went to the porch and after setting the scooty on fire, ran away. This defence witness has also stated that on second day i.e. on 07.05.2019, she went to Superintendent of Police, Kawardha and lodge a report (Ex.D-3) of the incident and had obtained acknowledgment on the complaint on 07.05.2019. She has also stated that on 08.05.2019, S.H.O. called her in police station and the S.H.O. informed her that the prosecutrix is minor, therefore, they cannot take action against her, and on 10.05.2019, the prosecutrix filed false report against her husband/accused, and no action was taken on her complaint. 12. Dr. Anju Bala Verma (PW-8) is the witness who medically examined the prosecutrix (PW-2) on 10.05.2019 but she did not find any internal or external injury over her body and gave her report under Ex.P-14-A. 13. Prosecutrix (PW-2) has admitted in para 19 of her cross- examination that on 07.05.2019, she had gone to Khairagarh with a brother from the police line, whose name she does not want to disclose, and they returned next day. She has also admitted that she filed the complaint at police station two days after returning from the wedding, but she 9 self stated that she went to the police station on 08.05.2019, the day she returned from the wedding and informed them about the incident. She has admitted that she did not file complaint before 10.05.2019. 14. Mother (PW-3) and father (PW-4) of the prosecutrix, both have admitted this suggestion of defence that wife of accused had filed a complaint against the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix had set their scooty on fire and after this incident, the prosecutrix lodged FIR against the accused. 15. Ashok Kumar Sahu (PW-5) who is an independent witness in the case has not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. On a careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is evident that although the prosecutrix (PW-2) has levelled serious allegations against the accused/respondent No.2, her testimony suffers from material inconsistencies and contradictions. She alleged repeated acts of harassment, assault, and rape, however, admittedly no report was made regarding the alleged incident of strangulation and throwing her into a bush of thorns. Significantly, there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of about fourteen months in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 12.03.2018, whereas the written complaint (Ex.P-2) and FIR (Ex.P-3) were filed only on 10.05.2019, citing “social consideration” as the reason for delay, which has not been satisfactorily 10 explained. The conduct of the prosecutrix further creates serious doubt about the veracity of her allegations. She admitted in her cross-examination that she had gone to Khairagarh on 07.05.2019 with a person from the police line, whose identity she chose not to disclose, and returned the next day. Though she claimed to have informed the police on 08.05.2019, she admittedly did not file any complaint prior to 10.05.2019. These admissions materially weaken the prosecution case and raise a strong possibility of embellishment and afterthought. 17. The defence version is further corroborated by defence witness Madhulika (DW-1), the wife of the accused, who has categorically stated that during her absence from home on 05.05.2019 to 06.05.2019, the scooty parked in the porch was set on fire by pouring kerosene. She promptly lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police on 07.05.2019 (Ex.D-3) and obtained acknowledgment thereof. Her testimony finds support from the admissions made by the prosecutrix as well as her parents (PW-3 and PW-4), who have conceded that a complaint was indeed filed by the accused’s wife against the prosecutrix for setting the scooty on fire, and that thereafter the FIR came to be lodged against the accused. This sequence of events lends substantial credence to the defence plea that the FIR was filed as a counterblast to the earlier complaint. 11 18. Further, the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case as is evident from the evidence of Dr. Anju Bala Verma (PW-8), who examined the prosecutrix and gave her report vide Ex.P-14-A noticing no internal or external injuries on her body which castes serious doubt and weakens the allegation of rape. Furthermore, the independent witness Ashok Kumar Sahu (PW-5) has not supported the prosecution version. The testimony of other prosecution witnesses also does not inspire confidence and, in fact, supports the defence version to a considerable extent. In view of the serious inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, admissions supporting the defence case, lack of medical corroboration, and non-support by independent witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has not committed any error of law or fact while acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The judgment of acquittal is based on a proper evaluation of evidence and does not suffer from perversity or misapplication of legal principles. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in the matter of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of 12 Karnataka, 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 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." 20. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 of the 13 charge under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Section 06 of POCSO Act, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondents particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. 21. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.01.15 11:20:52 +0530