2026:CGHC:26185-DB NAFR Reserved on : 15.06.2026 Delivered on : 29.06.2026 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 148 of 2022 1 - Xyz Nil ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Chowki Manipur P.S. Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rameshwar Das S/o Jugeshwar Das Aged About 42 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Bakirma P.S. Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, Judge and Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, Judge C.A.V. JUDGMENT Per Narendra Kumar Vyas,J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. The acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant/victim against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Surguja (Ambikapur) District – Surguja (C.G.) dated 28.01.2022, in Sessions Trial No. 83/2018, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 506-B, 323, 376, 323 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case in brief:- A. On 17.06.2018, a complaint (Ex.P/2) was filed by the victim before the Police Station - Manipur of District Ambikapur, stating therein, that on 15.06.2018, at night, she, after having dinner, was sleeping in her house, while her children were sleeping in separate rooms. At about 11:00 PM, the victim went outside her house to use the bathroom. While she was returning to her room, the accused Rameshwar Das, who was allegedly hiding nearby, saw her alone and caught hold of her. When the victim tried to raise an alarm, the accused covered her mouth and threatened that if she shouts, he would kill her and throw away her body. Under such threats, assaulted her and forcibly committed rape upon her. As a result of the assault by fists and by throwing her on the ground, the victim sustained injuries and suffered pain on her face, neck, back, and hands. The victim attempted to inform her husband about the incident by mobile phone on the same night, but his phone was switched off. She informed her neighbour Savitri Das and her son Mohit Das about the incident that very night. Thereafter, in the morning of 16.06.2018, Savitri Das informed the victim's husband Tapeshwar Das over the phone about the incident. She also informed him that on 16.06.2018, Rameshwar had again assaulted and pushed the victim. When the victim's husband returned home on 17.06.2018, she lodged a report regarding the incident. B. Based on her written complaint, a First Information Report (Ex.P/15) was registered against the accused at Manipur Outpost on 17.06.2018. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. A spot map (Ex. P/6) and a site plan/sketch map (Ex.P/1) of the place of occurrence were prepared. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge- sheet was filed against the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur. After committal, the case was sent to the Sessions Court for trial. Thereafter, learned Sessions Court allotted the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) for disposal. 4. On the basis of evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court has recorded its finding that the victim is a consenting party and by the impugned judgment learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved with this judgment, the victim has filed this acquittal appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and wrongly acquitted the accused. He would further submit that learned trial Court has erred in disbelieving the statement of the victim wherein she has categorically narrated the incident. He would further submit that the Trial Court failed to apply the presumption under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act and wrongly inferred consent. The testimony of the victim is duly corroborated by independent witness Savitri Bai (PW/5), who was informed about the incident immediately after its occurrence. Further, the medical evidence of the Doctor (PW/9) who has examined the victim and given medical report (Ex.P/16) supports the prosecution case. The Trial Court attached undue importance to minor omissions and contradictions while ignoring the consistent and reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and deserves to be set aside by allowing the present appeal, thus, he would pray for admission of the appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. From appreciation of evidence of PW/2 the victim particularly paragraph 9 and 10 it is quite vivid that the victim is a consenting party as she has admitted that the accused first removed her undergarment and thereafter removed his own and committed the offence. She has also admitted that she had told the accused that if someone happened to see them, it would bring disrepute to them, to which the accused replied that no one would come there. She has further admitted that the accused thereafter had committed sexual intercourse with her for about ten minutes and also admitted that he has gagged her mouth by one hand and also admitted that she has not cut the hand of the accused by teeth and also admitted after intercourse she has gone into the house and wore the undergarment and has not made any hue and cry or raise alarm after the accused had left the place of occurrence. 8. From the appreciation of the evidence, it is quite vivid that the victim is the consenting party. Further the ocular evidence of the victim is supported by the medical evidence i.e. opinion of the doctor PW/9 Dr. Rojlin R. Ekka wherein she has given opinion that no definite opinion can be given about the present incident and all the injuries enumerated in the report are caused by hard and blunt object which were three-four days old. 9. From the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court and by this Court also coupled with the fact that the victim is aged about 40 years having three children and also her testimony before the trial Court wherein it has been revealed that they had free conversation regarding the after effect of the act if someone sees them while performing the act, therefore, no other conclusion can be drawn except that the victim is a consenting party. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kaini Rajan vs. State of Kerala {(2013) 9 SCC 113} has examined the consent of the victim in rape cases and held as under :- “12. Section 375 IPC defines the expression “rape”, which indicates that the first clause operates, where the woman is in possession of her senses, and therefore, capable of consenting but the act is done against her will; and second, where it is done without her consent; the third, fourth and fifth, when there is consent, but it is not such a consent as excuses the offender, because it is obtained by putting her on any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. The expression “against her will” means that the act must have been done in spite of the opposition of the woman. An inference as to consent can be drawn if only based on evidence or probabilities of the case. “Consent” is also stated to be an act of reason coupled with deliberation. It denotes an active will in the mind of a person to permit the doing of an act complained of. Section 90 IPC refers to the expression “consent”. Section 90, though, does not define “consent”, but describes what is not consent. “Consent”, for the purpose of Section 375, requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent. Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances”. 10. Learned trial Court in the impugned judgment on appreciation of evidence has recorded its finding about the fact that the victim is a consenting party based upon proper appreciation of evidence, which does not suffer from perversity or illegality as such it has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent No.2 of the charges levelled against him, which warrants interference by this Court. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE JUDGE Sd/- Deshmukh KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.06.29 16:06:02 +0530