1 2026:CGHC:18094-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 464 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mohan Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Rahul Kumar Rajput S/o Rajiv Ranjan Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Karmchari Nagar, Sikola Bhatha Police Station- Mohan Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant/State. 2. By way of present petition filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has sought leave to appeal MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.04.22 13:27:04 +0530 2 against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 173/2021 by which, the respondent has been acquitted from charges under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim was working as a cook at the house of the accused in the year 2019, however, she discontinued her work during the lockdown period in the year 2020. It is alleged that on 05.04.2021, while the victim had gone to work at another house situated in Surya Nagar, the accused contacted her telephonically and asked her to come to his house for washing clothes. Pursuant thereto, between 2:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., the victim went to the house of the accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that after completing her work and while she was about to leave, the accused allegedly caught hold of her, questioned her as to how she could leave, forcibly took her to the bed, committed rape upon her, and threatened to kill her in case she disclosed the incident to her husband. On the basis of the report lodged by the victim, Crime No. 145/2022 came to be registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused, and upon his surrender, the case was committed to the Court for trial. 3 4. Upon framing of charges under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein he denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded false implication. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, improper, and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, and is therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has gravely erred in appreciation of facts and evidence on record and has failed to adopt a judicious approach while evaluating the testimony of material witnesses. The prosecution case, as unfolded through PW-1 (victim) and PW-3 (husband of the victim), was natural, cogent, and trustworthy, yet the same has been discarded on untenable grounds. The learned Trial Court has erroneously attached undue significance to the delay in lodging the FIR, overlooking the settled legal position that in cases of sexual assault, delay is not fatal, as the victim often undergoes severe trauma and hesitation before reporting the incident. Further, the finding that the victim did not immediately disclose the incident or threats to others has been wrongly used 4 to grant benefit of doubt to the accused, ignoring the social realities and psychological impact associated with such offences. It is further submitted that the conduct of the accused, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, clearly reflects his culpable intention, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. Although it is conceded that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited, it is a well- settled principle that where the findings recorded by the Trial Court are perverse, manifestly unjust, or based on misappreciation of evidence, the appellate court is well within its jurisdiction to interfere. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider that minor discrepancies or improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses do not demolish an otherwise credible and reliable version. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is respectfully urged that the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Trial Court are unsustainable in law, being improper and unjust, and the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned judgment along with the material on record annexed with the present appeal. 7. The learned Special Judge, after a detailed appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the respondent/accused upon a meticulous appreciation of the oral 5 and documentary evidence on record, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the respondent/accused. The Court examined the ingredients of the offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC, including the concept of consent and its statutory explanations. It was observed that the victim was a major woman aged about 39 years, and therefore, the case did not fall within the statutory presumptions relating to minority or incapacity to consent. The prosecution case was found to be primarily based on the testimony of the victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-3), without any independent corroboration. While the victim alleged that on 05.04.2021 the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her after calling her to his house, the Court noted material inconsistencies between her written complaint (Ex.P/1), the First Information Report (Ex.P/2), and her deposition before the Court. In particular, the allegation of threat to life, which was mentioned in the written complaint, was found to be absent in her examination-in-chief, thereby creating a material omission affecting the credibility of the prosecution version. 8. The learned Trial Court further placed considerable reliance on the delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR, holding that the explanation of shame and fear was not satisfactorily established in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was 6 observed that the victim did not disclose the alleged incident to her husband, family members, or any person in the neighbourhood immediately after the occurrence, which was considered inconsistent with normal human conduct in such serious matters. In view of these factors, coupled with the absence of corroborative evidence, the Court held that the testimony of the victim and her husband did not inspire the level of confidence required for conviction. Accordingly, extending the benefit of doubt, the accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow this petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 10. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference 7 would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the CRMP seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet