1 2026:CGHC:6948-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 328 of 2018 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus Sunny Kumr Verma, S/o Salikram Verma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Khaira, P. S. Ghumka, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. For Respondent : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 09.02.2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 24.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2015, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 363, 366-A and Sections 376(2) (h) (m) and 493 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated are that the complainant (PW-1) had lodged the missing report at Police Station- Ghumka, alleging therein that his daughter (prosecutrix) went missing in the intervening night of 06.04.2014 and 07.04.2014 and was not traceable. Upon the said report, the case was registered and the police started investigation into the matter and offence under Section 366 came to be registered against unknown person. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of respondent/accused vide Ex. P/1 on 21.01.2015 at Wardha (Maharashtra). The prosecutrix disclosed the fact that the respondent gave allurement of marriage and took her to Dongargarh Railway Station from where he took her Surat (Gujarat) by train and they started doing the labour work by residing in a room and their marriage was solemnized in the temple and after the marriage, they started living as husband and wife. As such, on the basis of the report, the crime was found to have occurred and hence the Police registered a named F.I.R. against the accused under Crime No. 41/2014 for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the investigation, a spot map vide Ex. P/02, spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex. P/07 and also Recovery Panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P/01. On production of father of the prosecutrix (PW-1), prosecutrix’s birth certificate (Ex. P/4) was seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P/3), in which the date of birth was mentioned as 29.05.1997. The prosecutrix’s age was also examined by a Radiologist and according to him, her age was found to be between 17-18 years at the time of examination. After obtaining the consent from the prosecutrix, her medical examination was conducted and also her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused was arrested and his medical examination 3 was also conducted. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the 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 Sections 363, 366-A and 376 (2) (h) (m) of IPC and 493 of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 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 has erred by acquitting the respondent of the offences levelled against him. The learned trial Court has not justified by giving too much significance to the minor omissions and contradictions that appeared in the prosecution evidence. Learned trial Court has erred in holding the prosecutrix to be above 18 years of age. The prosecution has adduced the oral as well as documentary evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix, suggest the age of the prosecutrix to be around 17 years at the time of incident. He would further submit that the learned trial Court should have appreciated the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-4), father of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and Jethuram Sahu (PW-5) with regard to abduction of the prosecutrix without the consent of her parents and Dr. Sauhadra Thakur (PW-13) has examined the prosecutrix and confirmed the forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its true perspective and has succumbed to the conjectures and surmises. 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 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 charges levelled against him, as such, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 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 charges against the accused/respondent under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 (2) (h) (m) of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of all charges on this ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. PW-4, the prosecutrix/victim has stated that she studied at the Girls Higher Secondary School in Class- XI, Ghumka and in the year 2014, after being scolded by her parents for studying, she left home in anger on Navratri and walked to Dongargarh. Many people were going to Shirdi from Dongargarh, so she accompanied them to Shirdi. She stated that she lived in Shirdi Sai Baba’s temple for three months, where she performed worship. The accused/Sunny Kumar Verma, had come to Shirdi with his friends and met her there and when asked how she arrived, she told them she had left home in anger, after which she accompanied the accused and his friends and went to Wardha and where she used to live separately in a rented house and the accused also used to live separate from her. She further stated that she neither performed marriage with the accused/respondent, nor even the physical relationship was established between them. Afterwards, the 5 police took her to Balika Grah and she admitted her signatures on her consent letter for her medical examination vide Ex. P/6 and in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. vide Ex.P/8. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her, but she denied all suggestions of the prosecution. In para 12 of his cross- examination, she admitted the suggestion put forth by the defence counsel that the accused Sunny Kumar Verma, did not entice her away. 8. PW-01, father of the prosecutrix/victim has stated that about a year and a half to two years ago, his daughter went away without informing him and therefore, he lodged a missing report at Police Station- Ghumka and thereafter he received a call from a relative of Valsad (Gujarat) in his mobile phone and received information that his daughter and the accused Sunny Kumar Verma had arrived in Valsad, Gujarat, as such, he went to Valsad along with his brother, friend and father of the accused and they found the accused and his daughter working as a labour at a house construction site in Gujarat. When they were returning home from Valsad with the accused and his daughter, then at Surat Railway Station, the accused abused him by using filthy language and the accused ran towards the raliway track and field with his daughter by taking advantage of the crowd. He gave statement to the Police in his police statement which was recorded vide Ex. D/1 and he further stated that he deposed the same statement in his examination-in-chief, however, he cannot explain the reason for the omission of the aforesaid fact in Ex. D/1. He denied the defence's suggestion that his daughter left his house without informing him because he had scolded her for not studying. 6 9. PW-3 Doman Singh Verma, PW-5 Jethuram Sahu and PW-6 Horilal Sahu have stated that they came to know that the prosecutrix living with the accused in Gujarat and then they went to Gujarat for bringing back the prosecutrix. 10. PW-9 Jyoti Mitre has stated that she knows the prosecutrix as she worked as a labourer next to her home. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined, but she denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix and the accused were in cohabitation. 11. PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Patel, who conducted the ossification test of the prosecutrix had opined that age of the prosecutrix is 17-18 years and gave his report vide Ex. P/11 and X-Ray report plate is Ex. P/12. 12. PW-12, Dr. Sahodra Thakur, examined the prosecutrix, but she did not find any external or internal injuries, as such, no definite opinion can be given regarding recent forceful sexual intercourse, her report is Ex. P/16-A. 13. From close scrutiny of statements of all the witnesses, clearly shows that the prosecutrix (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution case and medical report has also not supported the prosecution case. PW-1 father of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and other witnesses have stated that the prosecutrix was missing from home and she was recovered from Gujarat, but they have stated nothing about other allegations of the prosecution levelled against the accused/respondent. As such, learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence after mulling over the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly finds that prosecutrix (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution case and she herself stated that she went to Shirdi alone on Navratri by accompanying some travellers and it is also clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that she met with the accused/respondent, when he 7 came to Shirdi along with his friends. Thereafter, the prosecutrix (PW- 1) became close with the accused/respondent and with her own free will she went to live with the accused at Gujarat. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondent and learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of all the aforesaid charges levelled against him. 14. 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 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.” 15. 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 8 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. 16. 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