1 2026:CGHC:8793-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 57 of 2016 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Piyush Bhai Majethia, S/o Shri Mannsukhan Bhai, aged about 28 Years, 2. Prakash Bhai Majethia, S/o Shri Mansukhan Bhai Majethia, aged about 38 Years, Both are R/o Village Sawarkundla, District Amreli, Presently R/o Suvidha Apartment House No. A-104, Bhola Nagar, Police Station Barcha, District Surat Gujrat. 3. Ganesh @ Ajay Sharma, S/o Late Deoraj Sharma, aged about 23 Years, R/o Balthankhurd, Police Station Jaatusana, District Rewadi Haryana. ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 19.02.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 05.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court for Trial of Sexual Offences (Rape Cases) North Bastar, AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.02.20 16:00:10 +0530 2 Kanker, C.G. in Sessions Case No.97/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 368/34, 370(3)/34. 376/34, 384/34 & 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prosecutrix, aged about 24 years, lodged a report at Police Station Durgukondal alleging that accused/respondent No. 3- Ganesh @ Ajay Sharma, induced her on the pretext of providing employment and took her away from her village on 30.01.2014. It is alleged that she was taken to Raipur, Delhi and Haryana, where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse against her will. It is further alleged that she was sold at Nagpur for a sum of Rs.35,000/- and thereafter taken to Surat, where she was sold to accused persons, namely, Piyush (respondent No. 1) and Prakash (respondent No. 2), for a sum of Rs. 85,000/-. It is also alleged that accused- Piyush forcibly married the prosecutrix and subjected her to sexual exploitation. On the basis of the said report, FIR (Ex.P-35) was registered against the accused persons. 3. During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent of the prosecutrix, she was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-9 Dr. S.K. examined her and did notice any external or internal injury over the person of the prosecutrix and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-4. Vide Ex.P-7, clothes of prosecutrix was seized. Vide Ex.P-18, clothes and other articles were seized from house of accused-Ganesh. Vide Exs.P-21 & P-22, mobile phones and other articles were seized from accused-Piyush & Prakash. However, seized articles were not sent to FSL for chemical examination. 3 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. The accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the aforesaid charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-1 (prosecutrix), to establish that accused persons/respondents are the authors of the crime in question. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the accused persons/respondents supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, has rightly acquitted the accused persons which needs no interference by this Court. 8. We have 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:- 4 “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.” 10.The question for consideration is whether the accused persons/respondents are the authors of the crime in question. 11.PW-1 prosecutrix stated in her deposition that accused/respondent No. 3- Ganesh @ Ajay Sharma, who was in telephonic contact with her, induced her on the pretext of providing employment at Raipur/Delhi Airport, and on 29.01.2014, she left her home and accompanied him. She further stated that he took her to Raipur, Delhi and Haryana, where he committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. Thereafter, she was taken to Nagpur and handed over to one Deepa Bai for Rs.35,000/-, and subsequently taken to Surat, where accused- Piyush and Prakash allegedly purchased her for Rs.85,000/-. She further stated that accused-Piyush forcibly married her and committed sexual intercourse with her, and that she was threatened and deprived of her mobile phone and other belongings. However, on the contrary, in her cross-examination, she admitted that she had studied up to 12th standard and was about 23 years of age at the time of leaving her home. She further admitted that she had left her parental home voluntarily and stayed at Nagpur Railway Station from the night of 14.02.2014 till the afternoon of 15.02.2014, which is a crowded place having a police outpost, yet she did not make any complaint to anyone. She also admitted that during her stay outside, she remained in telephonic 5 contact for about 1½ to 3 months with her cousin and other family members, but did not make any allegation against the accused persons. She further admitted that she travelled to Surat in a fully occupied bus but did not inform any passenger about any coercion. She also admitted that at Surat, she resided in the house of accused- Piyush along with his family members in a crowded locality and lived as a member of the family. It is further admitted by her that her marriage with accused- Piyush was solemnized according to social customs in a marriage hall in the presence of several persons and photographs of the marriage ceremony were also taken. She also admitted that she lived with accused- Piyush as his wife for about four months, visited relatives socially as husband and wife, performed household work, and was treated well without any difficulty. She also admitted that no discussion regarding any alleged sale took place in her presence. She further admitted that a love relationship had developed between her and accused- Ganesh, that he did not cause any physical injury to her during their relationship, and that she did not lodge any report against him while she was in contact with her family members. She also admitted that she had carried her educational certificates and clothes while leaving her house and that she had frequent telephonic conversations with accused-Ganesh prior to leaving home. She also admitted that she travelled by public transport, stayed at railway stations and other public places, but did not raise any alarm. She further admitted that she stayed at the house of Deepa Bai for about one week, moved outside during that period, but did not make any complaint to anyone. 12.PW-2 cousin-sister of the prosecutrix, admitted that she and the prosecutrix used to reside together. She further admitted that even after the prosecutrix went to Raipur, she remained in telephonic contact with her for 6 about 3–4 months. During those conversations, prosecutrix informed her that she was doing her job well, enquired about the well-being of the family, and never made any complaint or disclosed any difficulty or harassment either to her or to her parents. 13.Similarly, PW-3 mother of the prosecutrix also admitted that prior to leaving home, prosecutrix used to speak with accused- Ganesh @ Ajay Sharma over phone and that even after going to Raipur, she remained in telephonic contact with her for about three to four months. During these conversations, prosecutrix informed her that she was doing her job well, enquired about the family’s well-being, and never made any complaint of harassment or difficulty. She further admitted that she did not inform the police about the whereabouts or condition of the prosecutrix, nor did she state with whom she was staying or about any incident. She also admitted that she did not go in search of her daughter and except stating she was doing a job, the prosecutrix did not disclose any other fact to her. Likewise, PW-6 father of the prosecutrix also admitted that the prosecutrix had gone to Raipur on her own volition. He further admitted that after she left home, he remained in telephonic contact with her for about two to three months. He stated that after her return, the police did not conduct any inquiry from him. He also admitted that the prosecutrix had studied up to the 12th standard and was sufficiently mature to understand what was right and wrong. 14.Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with each other. Further, the evidence on record shows that prosecutrix 7 herself left the house and travelled and stayed with accused persons/respondents at different places i.e. Raipur, Delhi, Haryana and Surat on her own free will and also remained in telephonic contact with her family members. No resistance was offered by her during the course of such travel and stay, nor did she lodge any complaint or raise any alarm before any nearby person while travelling or staying with accused persons/respondents. These circumstances clearly indicate that the allegations of forcible acts are not established against accused persons/respondents and there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that accused persons/respondents are the authors of the crime in question. The learned trial Court, after elaborately discussing and analyzing the evidence led by the prosecution, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted accused persons/respondents of the charges leveled against them by extending the benefit of doubt. 15. 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; 8 (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 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." 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and possible view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 17.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh