1 2026:CGHC:557-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 707 of 2022 State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Aman Soni S/o Suraj Soni Aged About 23 Years R/o In Front Of Sunrise School, Ghutrapara, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/Appellant :Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge 06.01 .2026 1. Heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant/State. 2. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.12.2021passed in S.T. No. 07 of 2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur) CG, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has acquitted the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.01.07 19:01:35 +0530 2 respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) holding that the benefit of doubt should lean in favour of the accused. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: (i) The prosecutrix/victim and accused Aman Soni had been interested in each other for the past three years, and Aman Soni was engaged. On November 5, 2019, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the accused called the prosecutrix/victim, telling her they would elope and get married. He then summoned her to the Ghutrapara Dauguri Temple and stayed there overnight. Accused Aman Soni forcibly raped her by having physical relations with her. The next morning, they stayed at Vibha Soni's friend's place in Patpariya, where the accused Aman Soni forcibly had physical relations with her. (ii) The accused had put vermilion and made her wear an artificial mangalsutra in Vibha Soni's room and was offering to take her to Raipur by train, which she refused. When the prosecutrix/victim asked the accused to live with her as husband and wife in front of her family and society, he refused to accept her as his wife. Accused Aman Soni, under the pretense of accepting her as his wife, raped her. Based on the written complaint of the prosecutrix/victim, a First Information Report (Ex.P.-2) was registered against the accused at the Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur, on 7 November 2019. 3 Witness statements were recorded during the investigation. A scene map (Ex..P.-5) and a site map (Ex. P.-6 and 7) were prepared. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, from where, after the surrender, the case was sent to the Sessions Court for trial. The Honorable Sessions Court transferred the case to this court for disposal. (iii) The learned presiding officer framed charges against the accused under sections 366 and 376(2) (d) of the Indian Penal Code and read them out to him, and he denied the charges. During the trial under section 313 of the CrPC, the accused stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He expressed his intention not to offer any defence evidence. (iv) To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant/victim P.W.-1, Patwari Gopal Soni P.W..-2, Patwari Ramesh Kumar Mishra P.W..-3, mother of the complainant/victim P.W..-4, father of the complainant/victim PW.-5, Vibha Soni P.W.-6, Asst. and exhibited 25 documents. Thereafter, the learned trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence and material available acquitted the accused. Hence this petition. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent/accused from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He 4 would next contend that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of the victim/prosecutrix (PW-1), where, she has stated that she was working in a Hero Honda Showroom where the respondent used to trouble her by way of making telephonic call many times. Thereafter, accused forcibly abducted her and brought her in the house of one Vibha Soni where he committed sexual intercourse with her and on denying for the same the accused put vermilion in the parting of her heir and asked that now you are my wife. Thereafter, the accused again committed sexual intercourse. She disclosed about the forcible and incriminating act of accused and other persons committed by her. The statement of victim under section 164 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, where, she has stated about the incriminating act of accused. He would next contend that PW-4 Smt. Rina Gupta and PW-5 Nandkishore Gupta have supported the case of the prosecution in their statements and apart from those prosecution witnesses PW-7 Arun Gupta, ASI also supported the case of the prosecution and explained about the investigating proceeding conducted by the prosecution. He would lastly contend that since the learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence as the prosecution's case completely narrates the case in which the accused only is the culprit and has proved the same beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, leave deserves to be granted. 5. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur) 5 while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed that the the prosecutrix was a major, educated, and mature woman, fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her acts. From her own testimony and admissions made during cross-examination, it was clearly established that there existed a prior love relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused, and that both intended to marry each other. The Court further noted that the said relationship was opposed by the family members of the prosecutrix due to inter-caste differences, which constituted the background of the entire episode. The Trial Court found that the prosecutrix had voluntarily left her house during the night, after making a false pretext of feeding cattle, and that she had herself contacted the accused over phone and called him near her house. It was further held that she willingly accompanied the accused on his motorcycle, without any resistance, protest, or alarm, despite having sufficient opportunity to seek help at public places. 7. The Trial Court laid considerable emphasis on the conduct of the prosecutrix and observed that: • She carried her mobile phone with her and remained in continuous contact; • Call details revealed that calls were made from her mobile phone itself; • She did not inform her family members or the police at the earliest opportunity; • Even after recovery, no immediate allegation of rape, force, 6 or threat was made. 8. The Court further held that the delay in lodging the First Information Report remained unexplained, thereby casting serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. The Investigating Officer admitted that no immediate medical examination was conducted, no injuries were found, and no incriminating articles such as sindoor or mangalsutra were recovered, which weakened the prosecution case. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that the prosecutrix herself admitted that she and the accused had planned to leave home together, and that the accused had not abducted or forcibly taken her away. The evidence of the prosecutrix’s parents did not establish any act of force, threat, or inducement attributable to the accused. 9. On the issue of consent, the Trial Court categorically held that the facts on record demonstrated that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, and that the allegation of consent being obtained on a false promise of marriage was not supported by cogent evidence. The Court held that a failed or frustrated relationship does not ipso facto amount to rape, particularly when there was no proof that the promise of marriage was false from its inception. 10. In view of these cumulative circumstances, the Trial Court concluded that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions, improbabilities, and unexplained delays, and that the benefit of doubt necessarily had to be extended to the 7 accused. 11. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offence, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 12. Recently, 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 would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 13. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu