1 2026:CGHC:1327-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 161 of 2018 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Kamlesh Chandra, S/o Gangaprasad Chandra Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bargaon, Police Station Nawagarh, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Ms. Smita Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 09.01.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Case No. 229/2013, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) by extending the benefit of doubt. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.01.12 16:55:57 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.08.2013 at about 12:00 a.m., victim, a 60-year-old deaf and dumb woman, was sleeping in her house. It is alleged that the accused/respondent forcibly entered her house, gagged her mouth, removed her clothes, and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is further alleged that when the victim raised an alarm, the accused/respondent attempted to flee, and in the light of a burning fireplace, she identified him after removing the cloth from his face. Thereafter, on the next day, the victim allegedly narrated the incident to her family members through gestures and, while proceeding towards her house, she is stated to have identified the accused/respondent riding a motorcycle and pointed towards him. Subsequently, a written report (Ex.P-6) was lodged against the accused/respondent, pursuant to which, an FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against him. 3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Consent letter of the victim (Ex.P-8) was obtained and she was sent for medical examination, where Dr. M.J. (PW-6) examined her and did not notice any sign of recent sexual intercourse, nor did she find any injury on her person, either internally or externally and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-5. Vide Ex.P-7, clothes of the victim were seized. The seized articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination, however, no FSL report has been brought on record. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 3 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charges leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the accused/respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the PW-5/victim, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the accused/respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence available on record, has rightly acquitted the accused/respondent, which calls for no interference by this Court. 8. 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 presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 4 10. The present case is based solely on the evidence of PW-5/victim. A bare perusal of her testimony would show that she herself has turned hostile, as in her statement before the Court, through her son acting as an interpreter, she has categorically denied the allegation of rape and has not supported the prosecution case. She has stated, through gestures, that the accused/respondent neither entered her house nor committed any sexual assault upon her and on the contrary, she has stated that the person who came to her house had covered his face with a cloth and fled away when the chimney was lit. This apart, PW-6 Dr. M.J., who medically examined the victim, did not notice any sign of recent sexual intercourse nor did find any injury on her person either externally or internally. Since the victim/PW-5 herself turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, is justified in acquitting the accused/respondent of the said charges, which calls for no interference. 11. Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh