1 2026:CGHC:5139-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 10 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Dhaneshwar Dewangan S/o Shri Nandlal Dewangan Aged About 24 Years R/o Bade Bhiravand Kotwarpara, Police Station Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/accused For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ Judgment on Board (30th January, 2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J The appeal is listed for hearing on admission. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, it is heard finally. 02. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 2.8.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, 2 Kondagaon, in ST No.27/2019 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 450 and 511/376 of IPC. 03. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.11.2018 at about 11.30 when the prosecutrix was all alone at her house, the respondent/accused came there and demanded water for drinking. When she went inside to fetch water, he entered her house, closed the door and attempted to commit rape upon her. However, at that time father of the prosecutrix arrived and pushed open the door. The accused tried to hide himself. Hearing the commotion, Purso Patel and Mukesh also reached the spot and seeing them, the accused fled from there. Based on the report of the prosecutrix, the offence under Section 354 of IPC was registered against the accused. During investigation, statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 450, 376/511 of IPC. 04. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 450 and 511/376 of IPC against the accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and merely on the basis of certain irrelevant contradictions and omissions recorded an erroneous finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The prosecutrix has categorically stated about the act of the accused and her statement is duly supported by the evidence of PW-2 Purso Ram. Thus, looking to the overall evidence on record coupled with conduct of the accused, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondent/accused be held guilty of the charges leveled against him. 07. As no notice is issued to the respondent/accused, there is no representation on his behalf. 08. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the respondent/accused was charged under Sections 450 and 511/376 of 4 IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence acquitted of both the charges by the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against him beyond reasonable doubt. 10. PW-3 prosecutrix states that on 22.11.2018 when she was at her house with her handicapped brother, the respondent/accused came and asked for water to drink. However, when she went to kitchen to fetch water, the accused surreptitiously entered the house and closed the door and window and thereafter, gagged her mouth and attempted to remove her leggings and outraged her modesty. At that time, her father arrived and seeing the motorcycle and slippers of the accused outside, tried to open the door and then pushed it open and saw that the accused was outraging her modesty. Seeing her father, the accused hid himself behind the door. Thereafter, her father informed about all this to the neighbourers and meanwhile, the accused fled from there naked which was seen by wife of the accused and the neighbourers also. Thereafter she went to police station and lodged a written report Ex.P/3 which bears her signature from A to A part. In cross-examination she admits the suggestion of the defence that had the accused not lodged report against her father, they also would not have lodged report against him. She denies that a case is going on the court at Kondagaon against her father. She admits that whatever she stated in the examination-in-chief was narrated to the 5 police and if the same is not there in her police statement of Ex.D/1, she cannot tell the reason. 11. Similar is the statement of PW-4 father of the prosecutrix. However, in cross-examination he also admits that on the date of incident the accused lodged a report against him and a case is going on in the court at Kondagaon against him. He admits that thereafter only he went with Kotwar to police station where the police asked him to call his daughter/prosecutrix and lodge a report against him. However, he denies the suggestion that had the accused not lodged report against him, they would also not have lodged report against the accused. 12. PW-1 Mukesh Vatti, the independent witness, has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. He was cross- examined by the prosecution where he denied all the suggestions of the prosecution including his police statement. PW-2 uncle of the prosecutrix though supported the statement of the prosecutrix but he exaggerated his version stating that the prosecutrix told him that the accused committed rape upon her. He states that all these facts were disclosed to the police while giving statement and if the same are not there, he cannot tell the reason. He admits that at the behest of police they lodged report against the accused. He volunteers that prior to their reaching police station, the accused had already lodged report against father of the prosecutrix. 6 13. It is thus clear from the statements of the prosecutrix, her uncle and father that on the date of incident the accused first lodged report against father of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix admits that had the accused not lodged report against her father, they would also not have lodged report against him. Her father and uncle admit that they lodged report at the behest of the police. Father of the prosecutrix admits that after coming to know through police about lodging of report by the accused against him, he went to police station with Kotwar where the police asked him to call his daughter and get a report lodged by her. From the statements of these witnesses, it is clear that there are material omission, contradiction and exaggeration in their statements before the police and the trial court. 14. True it is that ordinarily the evidence of the prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if her evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. It is equally true that while rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim, a false allegation of rape causes equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. Indisputably, in a case of sexual assault, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of 7 evidence in a criminal matter. In the present case, the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in 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 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; 8 (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.” 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record coupled with the conduct of the prosecutrix during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecutrix is not of a sterling quality which could make basis for conviction of the accused. The evidence of her father and uncle also suffers from the vice of omission, contradiction and exaggeration. Thus looking to the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality in recording a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused and it is therefore affirmed. 17. In the result, the appeal being meritless is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.01.31 14:35:08 +0530