1 2026:CGHC:5392-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 289 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balco, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Shailesh Kenwat S/o Shri Chhotu Kenwat Aged About 26 Years R/o Sarwamangla Road, Korba, Phokatpara, P. S. Kotwali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 30.01.2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 08.05.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Korba (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 24/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) and Section 3 (2) (v) Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/prosecutrix(PW-1) belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and resides at Gandhi Chowk, Korba and from June, 2013 to March, 2015, the accused/respondent had committed sexual intercourse near his house at Phokatpara with the prosecutrix for several times on the pretext of marriage and also he committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at Dongargarh for couple of times. On June, 2013 the accused/respondent took the prosecutrix near Darri, Korba at temple situated at Kosgai hill and solemnized marriage with her by applying vermilion on her hair part, since then the prosecutrix accepted the respondent as her husband and due to physical relationship between them, she got pregnant of four month. Subsequently, on April, 2015 the prosecutrix came to know that the accused/respondent was marrying somewhere else. She then informed him of her pregnancy and insisted him to take responsibility for her and the child; however, the accused denied her request, stating he would not marry her and suggesting she have an abortion. On 25.06.2015, the prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station- Kotwali Korba and on the basis of said report, F.I.R was registered. Medical examination was conducted of the prosecutrix and also statements of her and her mother were recorded. Thereafter, F.I.R. No. 05/2015 for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered at Police Station- A.JA.K., Korba and during the investigation, the statement of the witnesses were recorded and the prosecutrix’s caste 3 certificate, photocopy of dhakil kharij certificate, sonography report, treatment slip and documents relating to the examination slip were seized. Spot map was prepared and the accused was arrested and his medical examination was also conducted. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led 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 offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/ appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment without appreciating the material available on record. Learned trial Court has given grandness to minor contradictions and omissions and passed the impugned judgment which is bad in law and liable to be dismissed. Learned trial court while considering and evaluating the evidence of the prosecutrix, has completely failed to appreciate that the consent, if any given by the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse did not meet the test laid down by the explanation 2 of Section 375 of IPC and therefore, present was a case, wherein the act of the respondent was falling within the definition of rape under Section 375 of IPC and he was liable to be convicted and sentenced for that offence. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-01) is natural and truthful and she has given the true version of the occurrence. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-01) who 4 has categorically stated that the accused/respondent committed rape with her on many occasions in the pretext of marriage and she has also a child from the accused/respondent and when the prosecutrix asked the accused to marry, he refused her from the same. Learned trial Court overlooked the case of the prosecution and evidence against the accused/respondent by which the case of the prosecution is fully established against him beyond any reasonable doubt. 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. None for the respondent, despite service of notice upon him. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the accused/respondent under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the said charges on this ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondent. 7. 7. PW-1, the prosecutrix has stated that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the accused used to tell her that he loved her and would marry her and took her to temple situated at Kosgai hill and solemnized marriage with her by applying vermilion on her hair part. Then, the accused/respondent had committed sexual intercourse in his 5 house at Phokatpara and also he committed sexual intercourse with her at Dongargarh for couple of times and at Champa, where the accused took her in the hotel and established physical relationship with her, due to physical relationship between them, she got pregnant and then she apprised this fact to the accused in the month of April, to which the accused/respondent did not agree for marriage with her and further suggested her for abortion. Then, she filed a written complaint vide Ex. P/1 and Ex.P/2 and lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station- Kotwali vide Ex. P/3, wherein admitted her signature on A to A part. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she is an educated and major lady. She further admitted that she established a physical relationship with the accused after visiting the hotel. In para 30 of her cross- examination, she admitted that she had not told her mother about the physical relationship with the accused before filing the report. In para 36 of her cross-examination, she admitted that she went to Dongargarh with the accused and his friend without informing her mother. In para 39 of her cross-examination, she admitted that she is well familiar with Umesh Tiwari for past 3-4 years, but denied this suggestion of the defence that Umesh Tiwari is the biological father of her child. 8. PW-2 Shabra Khan and PW-3 Sameer Yadav have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross- examined them, but they denied all suggestions of prosecution and also denied their police statements vide Exs. P/12 and P/13 respectively. 9. PW-8, mother of the prosecutrix supported the testimony of her daughter/prosecutrix (PW-1). In her cross-examination, she 6 admitted the suggestion of defence that the prosecutrix had not informed her about the incident and further admitted that she was unaware of the persons her daughter met while outside the house. She further stated that she only came to know about the said incident, when she went to the police station. 10. It is evident from the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother (PW-8) and documents filed by the prosecution that prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix below 18 years on the date of incident and from close scrutiny of statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), it shows that the prosecutrix is a consenting party to the act of the accused/respondent. Learned trial Court has also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, rightly finds that statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable and thereby acquitted the accused/respondent of the said charges, thus the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondent. 11. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ganesan vs. State Represented By Its Inspector of Police 1 in para 10.3 as under:- 10.3 Who can be said to be a “sterling witness”, has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21. In paragraph 22, it is observed and held as under: “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in 1 (2020) 10 SCC 573 7 a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross−examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co−relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the 8 offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all 12 other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 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 9 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 Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE AMIT PATEL