1 2026:CGHC:9131 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 949 of 2025 • Xyz (Description Of Applicant Is In Closed Envelope) ... Applicant/complainant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 2. Toman Kumar Kaushik S/o Bhageshwar Kaushik Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Parsatthi, Chowki Karelibadi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For applicant. : Mrs. Swati Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State. : Ms. Prachi Singh, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 20/02/2026 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 438 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025 by the victim/complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 21-5-2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) in Criminal Appeals No. 11 of 2024 and 24 of 2024 arising out of same judgment of acquittal dated 12-12-2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 557 of 2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District Dhamtari whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2024 filed by the 2 victim/complainant as well as the Criminal appeal No.24 of 2024 filed by the State have been dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that the State has not preferred any revision against the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report in Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari that on 14-4-2022 at about 8.30 a.m. alleging that when the complainant was working with her children in the house, her husband had gone to outside the house for some work, at that time respondent No.2 entered into her house and asked whereabouts of her husband. She informed to respondent No. 2 that her husband had gone to outside the house for some work thereafter, immediately when she was alone, he started kissing her and attempted to remove her clothes, she made hue and cry, then accused caught hold of her hands and shoulder, thereafter pressed her breast. The accused also threatened her that he will kill her if she would disclose the incident to anybody and thereafter he ran away from the spot. When her husband returned back to his house, then she narrated the incident to her husband and thereafter a report was lodged in Police Station on the same day at 9 ‘O clock. On the basis of written report, offence under Sections 354-A, 452 and 506 of IPC has been registered by the Police Chowki, Karelibadi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined six witnesses ie., victim/complainant (PW/1), Manoj Kumar Kosle (PW/2), Thakur Ram Kosle (PW/3), Sevati Bai Kosle (PW/4), Dr. Sharad Thakur (PW/5), Mohanlal Nishad (PW/6) and exhibited documents from Ex.P1 written 3 report, Ex.P/2 FIR, Ex.P/3 Nasiri Naksha, Ex.P/4, 164 statement of the victim, Ex.P/5 Mulahija report, Ex.P/6 FIR,. Ex.P/7 arrest memo, Ex.P/8, information of arrest. 4. The accused/respondent No.2 has not examined any witness but he was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has taken plea of false implication on account of property dispute between the family members and exhibited documents Ex./D/1, written report of complainant, Ex.D/2, statement of victim, Ex.D/3, statement of Manoj Kosle, Ex.D/4, statement of Thakur Ram Kosle. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record has acquitted the accused against which the State as well as the victim have filed the appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (FTC). The appellate Court vide its impugned judgment dated 21-5-2025 dismissed both the appeals. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, the present applicant has filed this criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant would submit that the learned trial Court has committed material illegality in acquitting the accused which has wrongly been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. She would further submit that there are no contradictions and omissions in the evidence adduced before the learned trial Court and the victim remained affirm in her evidence wherein she has narrated the incident and how the offence has been committed by the accused. Learned trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence of victim (PW/1) wherein she has categorically stated the incident and there is no cross examination to this effect. Thus, she would pray for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 6. Learned State counsel supporting the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned trial Court has 4 committed illegality in acquitting the accused and thereafter the appellate Court has also committed illegality in dismissing the appeal without appreciation of evidence on record, as such, it is a perverse finding and deserves to be set aside by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supporting the judgment of acquittal would submit that there is sufficient ground of acquittal which has rightly been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He would further submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting any interference. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has rightly applied the provisions and has also taken note of fact that there was inter se family property dispute between the family members which has also been admitted by the victim/complainant PW/1 and PW/2 also. Thus, there is case of false implication which has been proved before the learned trial Court. He would further submit that the prosecution has not examined the children of the victim who were alleged to have been present at the time of incident and the statement of the victim also does not inspire confidence on the case of the prosecution as FIR was lodged on 14-4-2022 at 9” O clock whereas in the evidence before the learned trial Court she has stated that FIR was lodged at 12” O clock, thereafter, they came back to their house. He would further submit that the victim has clearly admitted that the relatives are residing nearby her house and instead, she has not informed to them about the incident, thereafter she waited for her husband to narrate the incident which shows that the false and fabricated case has been projected by the victim. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the criminal revision. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by both the courts below. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the point for determination is: “Whether the finding of acquittal suffers from perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court?” 10. To appreciate the point emerged for determination, it is expedient for this Court to go through the evidence of PW/1 victim who in examination-in- chief has reiterated the version taken by her in the complaint, but in the cross examination she has admitted that property dispute is going on between her husband and his brother and her brothers and sisters with the accused father in the Revenue Court and demarcation has also been done and the demarcation has taken place prior to 14-4-2022. She has also admitted that Kanti Bai who is mother of the accused has also lodged report against her husband, elder brother and his wife before the Police Station Karelibadi. She has also admitted that prior to one week of 14-4-2022, Police of Police Station has called upon her husband, brother of her husband and his wife for investigation in the same Police Station and their statements have also been recorded. She has also admitted that after investigation by the Police on the next day ie., on 8-4- 2022 they have gone to Police Station to lodge the complaint against Toman Kaushik, Lokeshwar Kaushik, Bhageshwar Kaushik, Kamti Bai Kaushik and the Bhageswhar Kaushik is father of the complainant and Kamti Bai is the mother of the accused and at that time Santosh Sahu was also present in Police Station. She has also admitted that mother of the accused has already lodged a complaint against them prior to filing of the present complaint on 14-4-2022. As such, there was strenuous relationship between them. She has also admitted that her husband’s 6 elder brother house and younger brother's house are adjacent to their house. She has also admitted that when her husband had gone to outside the house for some work, her children are with her in the house. She has also admitted that when they have gone to Police Station Karelibadi at that time accused was present. She has also admitted that there is no wound on her body. 11. PW/2 Manoj Kumar Kosle who is husband of the victim was not present in the house at the time of incident. PW/3 Thakur Ram Kosle has admitted that he reached to the house of the complainant on 14-4-2022 at 9 ‘O clock and also admitted that at that time his daughter-in-law/complainant and his brother Manoj Kumar were present in the house. He has also admitted that at that time he has not seen Toman Kosle and also admitted that her brother and victim reached to Police Station Karalibada at 10.30 a.m. at that time accused was present there. He has also admitted about the property dispute between them and also admitted that the house of the victim is adjacent to each other and also admitted that before him no incident has taken place. 12. PW/4 Sevati Bai Kosle has also admitted about inter se property dispute between the accused father and victim’s husband and father. PW/6 Sub Inspector has also admitted that the complainant’s husband and accused are relatives. 13. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has acquitted the accused by recording its finding that the prosecution is unable to establish from cogent evidence that any incident has taken place and also recorded that no one has seen the incident and the prosecution has not examined the vital witness i.e. children of the victim who can throw the light on the controversy, as such, it is unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court 7 has also taken into consideration the fact that the prosecution is unable to prove that the accused has trespassed the house of the victim, therefore, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused under Sections 354-A, 452 and 506 of IPC. 14. These finding recorded by the trial Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality which may warrant interference by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Though this Court cannot lose sight of the legal position that on the basis of the complainant's witnesses, conviction can be held, but it should be sterling quality and must have inspired confidence, unless and until the evidence of the victim is of such quality, it is not safe for this Court to convict the accused on the sole statement of the victim, more particularly once there is inter se family property dispute and this fact has been clearly admitted by the victim in her evidence before the trial Court. 15. Even all the witnesses examined by the prosecution who were family members have not dislodged the vital fact of inter se family dispute between the parties for property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the conviction of accused in a crime against woman and children and has held that if sole testimony of victim is found reliable and trustworthy require no corroboration, but corroboration becomes necessary when any doubt arises in the Court’s mind regarding veracity of the victim’s version. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Premkumar and another vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in (2024) 20 SCC 293 has held in paragraph 20 to 22 as under. “20. Law is well settled that generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i) wholly reliable; (ii) wholly unreliable; (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 8 The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the Court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence. 21. In Ganesan v. State4, this Court held that the sole testimony of thevictim, if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused. 22. This Court was tasked to adjudicate a matter involving gang rape allegations under section 376(2)(g), I.P.C in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court found totally conflicting versions of the prosecutrix, from what was stated in the complaint and what was deposed before Court, resulting in material inconsistencies. Reversing the conviction and holding that the prosecutrix cannot be held to be a 'sterling witness', the Court opined 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 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 offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all 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 9 supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged." 16. In light of the above-stated legal position and taking into the evidence of the victim, it is quite vivid that the statement of the victim also creates doubt about the correctness of the version coupled with the fact that she has also admitted about inter se family dispute between the parties and before lodging of F.I.R. prior to one week i.e., 14.04.2022 a report was also lodged by the opposite party and she has also stated that she went to Police Station on 14.04.2022 at 9 O' clock and they came back to their house at 12 O' clock, whereas from perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that at 9 O' clock. F.I.R. was lodged, as such, there is contradiction in timing of lodging of F.I.R. also. Both the Court below have taken note of fact that there is inter-se family property dispute was going on between the family members, as such possibility of false implication of the accused in this case cannot be ruled out. These findings do not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 17. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the material and evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is well merited, warranting no interference by this Court as the applicant is unable to point out any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment which entails this Court to exercise its revisional power, as such, no case for interference by this Court is made out. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2026.03.12 13:17:14 +0530