1 2026:CGHC:2635-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 192 of 2019 State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus Rakesh Kumar Sarthi, S/o Chatarpal Sarthi, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Puchapara, P.S. Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL For Respondent : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agarwal, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 16/01/2026 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) in case of “State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sarthi”, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of IPC. Hence, this appeal. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated are that the prosecutrix (PW-1) on 17.02.2017, when she was going to the house of her elder sister, situated in the same colony at village- Poochapara, at around 8:30 p.m., at that time, the accused met her near the Anganwadi and, saying that she would have to live with him, caught hold her hand and gagged her mouth and forcibly taken towards the Aanganwadi, where he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and after committing the said act, he fled from the spot. Then, the Prosecutrix (PW-1) returned home weeping and told her parents and also told her elder sister about the incident. Thereafter, she went to the police station- Katghora along with her parents to lodge an F.I.R. and the same was registered against the accused by S.I.- K.K. Dubey (PW-12) for offence under Section 376 of IPC and for medical examination of the prosecutrix, he obtained consent from her and her mother. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. S. Bhagat and gave her report vide Ex.P/7. S.I. K.K. Dubey (PW-12) had seized two slides which was prepared by a female doctor and sealed them also a sealed Kurti from female Constable Anjana Toppo and prepared seizure memo. On the same day, spot map was prepared by PW-12 according to the prosecutrix. The accused was arrested and his medical examination was conducted by Dr. B. R. Ratre and gave his report, wherein he opined that the accused was capable to perform sexual intercourse and underwear of the accused was seized by PW- 12. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and spot map was prepared by Patwari and on 18.12.2017, statements of the witnesses were recorded by PW-12. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the 3 accused/respondent before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the offence under Section 376 of IPC against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the State/respondent submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and incorrect and is liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has committed an error in deciding the facts in the case and law points. The learned trial Court passed the order of acquittal resulting in miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Court has disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix, whereby she has taken the name of the respondent and categorically stated that the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, even though no definite opinion could be given by Dr. Smt. Shakuntala Bhagat (PW-9) with regard to commission of forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In the F.S.L. report human sperm was found in the slides, cloths of the victim as well as undergarment of the accused, thus it is clear that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the respondent. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for accused/respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court upon due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence rightly acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charge levelled against him and as such, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 4 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charge against the accused/respondent under Section 376 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the aforesaid charge. 7. PW-1, the prosecutrix has stated that on 16.12.2017, when she was returning from the house of her sister at around 8-8:30 pm and upon reaching Anganwadi, at that time the accused grabbed and dragged her towards the boundary wall of the Anganwadi, where the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, she apprised this incident to her parents and went to the Police Station- Katghora along with her parents and lodged an F.I.R. (Ex. P/1), where she admitted her signature on A to A part. She gave her consent for her medical examination vide Ex. P/2 and admitted her signature on A to A part. She admitted her signatures in spot map (Ex. P/3), in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex. P/4) and (Ex.P/5) on A to A part. In her cross-examination, she denied this suggestion that father of the accused had come to her house with a marriage proposal. She herself stated that the father of the accused was about to come with a marriage proposal of his son/accused, but her mother refused it, as she was against the same. She also admitted this fact that her father was also against the marriage alliance with the accused. In para 21 of her cross-examination, she stated that “ इस घटना के पहले आरोपी राके श सारथी से मेरा शारीरिरक संबंध हुआ है। सा्ቌी स्वतः कही किक मैं 5 जहां भी किमलती थी वहां पर आरोपी राके श सारथी जबरदस्ती शारीरिरक संबंध बनाता था। इस घटना के पहले करीब 15-20 किदन के अंतराल में आरोपी राके श सारथी मेरे साथ जबरदस्ती शारीरिरक संबंध बनाता था। यह कहना सही है किक इस घटना के पहले आरोपी राके श सारथी ्ቛारा मेरे साथ शारीरिरक संबंध बनाने की रिरपोट) थाना में नहीं की ” थी। In paras 24 and 25 of her cross-examination, she stated that she had not screamed for help, and further stated that she had an ample opportunity to raise an alarm for help, however, she did not do so, even the accused opened the pant for committing the forcible sexual intercourse with her. 8. PW-2, mother of the prosecutrix, PW-3 Sister of the prosecutrix and PW-4, father of the prosecutrix have stated that prosecutrix apprised this fact that the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. PW-2 admitted this suggestion of defence in her cross- examination that father of the accused came to the house on behalf of his son regarding proposal of marriage with her daughter. 9. PW-5 Suresh Yadav has stated that While he was returning to his home after purchasing the vegetables from the market, at about 7:30 p.m., the accused and the prosecutrix were standing near the Anganwadi and talking to each other and on the next day, he came to know that accused Rakesh Sarathi had gone to jail. In his cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion of defence that during the conversations, the accused Rakesh Sarthi slapped the prosecutrix and then she went to her home crying. 10. PW-9 Dr. Shakuntala Bhagat has examined the prosecutrix (PW-1), but she did not find any external or internal injury upon her body and she 6 opined that she is habitual for sexual intercourse and no definite opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse. She gave her report vide Ex. P/7, wherein admitted her signature on B to B part. 11. From close scrutiny of statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and statements of other witnesses, clearly shows that the prosecutrix is a consenting party to the act of the accused/respondent and as per prosecution, she is aged about 21 years and she admitted this fact that before the said incident, she had established sexual relationship with the accused and also medical report has not supported the prosecution case. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, rightly finds that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondent. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011) in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of 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 7 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.” 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 14. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agarwal) JUDGE JUDGE AMIT PATEL