1 2026:CGHC:6159-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 210 of 2018 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: Police Station- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Firoz Ansari, S/o Hakim Ansari, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Narola, Police Station Ramkola, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amanuddin Ansari, S/o Juldan Ansari, Aged about 25 years, R/o Village Vijaynagar, Police Chowki- Vijaynagar, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, P.L. For Respondents : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 2 Per Rajani Dubey, J. 04/02/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Civil District–Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 46/2016, whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 376(D) and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 17.03.2016, the prosecutrix, a resident of village Hariharpur, had accompanied Bhupdev Singh to Ramanujganj for purchasing medicines for her mother. At about 2:00 a.m., Bhupdev Singh left her for court work, leaving her seated by the roadside. At that time, two persons arrived in a Tata Magic vehicle, forcibly abducted her and took her to Mitgai Road near the hill temple at Ramanujganj and thereafter into a nearby forest. It is alleged that accused Firoz first committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and thereafter accused Amanuddin also raped her against her will. After the incident, both accused fled away after robbing her of her mobile phone and Rs.60/-. The prosecutrix returned on foot and disclosed the incident to Ramnath Singh and Abdul Manan, who brought her to Ramanujganj. The FIR (Ex. P/1) was registered, spot map (Ex. P/3) prepared and the prosecutrix was medically examined after due consent (Ex. P/2). Her clothes were seized and sealed. The accused were medically examined and their 3 undergarments seized. The robbed mobile phone and cash were recovered from accused Amanuddin. Statements of witnesses were recorded and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 10.05.2016. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 376(D) and 392 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The statements of the accused/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded innocence, alleging false implication. No evidence was adduced by the accused/respondents in defence. 4. Upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges under Sections 376(D) and 392 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from serious legal infirmities and perversity, as the evidence on record has not been appreciated in its correct perspective. The testimony of the prosecutrix is clear, cogent and trustworthy, wherein she has categorically deposed about the forcible sexual assault committed by the respondents/accused. It is a settled position of law that conviction can safely be founded on the sole testimony of the 4 prosecutrix and minor inconsistencies or trivial discrepancies do not erode the core of the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court has further failed to apply the binding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases relating to sexual offences, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. The recovery of the prosecutrix’s mobile phone and Rs. 60/- from the possession of accused Amanuddin vide Seizure Memo Ex. P/8 provides strong corroborative evidence establishing the involvement of the respondents/accused in the commission of the offence. Additionally, the testimony of father of the prosecutrix (PW-2) duly corroborates the version of the prosecutrix with regard to abduction, sexual assault and robbery, which has been unjustifiably ignored by the Trial Court. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are illegal, perverse and unsustainable in law and, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal. The prosecution case suffers from material contradictions and lacks reliable corroboration, rendering the testimony of the prosecutrix unsafe for conviction. No perversity or illegality is made out in the impugned judgment warranting interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is evident from the record that the learned Trial Court framed charges against the respondents under Sections 376(D) and 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and, upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, acquitted the respondents of the said charges on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish its case against them beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Prosecutrix (P.W.-1) stated that as she was acquainted with the two accused persons, she boarded a Tata Magic vehicle to travel to Vijaynagar. However, she could not reach Vijaynagar and upon reaching near the Mitgai forest, she returned to Ramanujganj along with the accused persons and 5–6 unknown individuals. She further stated that she did not feel inclined to proceed to Vijayanagar and, therefore, returned from there. Thereafter, she went to concerned police station and lodged FIR against the respondents. She voluntarily stated that certain residents of Mitgai village had witnessed the incident of rape, pursuant to which she lodged the report. She further stated that the report was reduced into writing by the police and marked as Ex. P/1, and after recording the report, the police obtained her consent and referred her for medical examination, the consent letter being Ex. P/2. She further 6 stated that she was interrogated by the police. She stated that the police prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence and obtained her signatures thereon, the said map being Ex. P/3. She further stated that the Patwari also prepared the spot map, which was marked as Ex. P/4. She admitted her signatures on all the aforesaid documents from A to A part. In her cross-examination, she admitted this suggestion of defence that about 5–6 persons of Mitgai village had witnessed the physical relationship between her and the accused. She further admitted that she lodged the report under pressure from those persons and stated that had the said persons not witnessed the incident, she would not have reported the matter. She further admitted that both the accused had physical relations with her with her consent and willingness. However, she denied the suggestion that she was claiming the physical relationship to be consensual on account of any settlement having been arrived at with the accused. 10. The father of the prosecutrix (P.W.-2), brother of the prosecutrix (P.W.-3), Ramprasad Yadav (P.W.-4), Ramnath Singh (P.W.-5), Abdul Manan (P.W.-6) and Nandkumar (P.W.-8) did not support the prosecution case. Though they were declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution, they denied the suggestions put to them and also denied the statements allegedly made by them to the police as well as the proceedings conducted in their presence. 7 11. Dr. Snehlata Tirki (P.W.-10), who medically examined the prosecutrix, did not find any external or internal injury on her body and opined that no definite opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse. She submitted her medical report as Ex. P/10. 12. From the statement of the prosecutrix, it clearly emerges that she was a consenting party and that the FIR was lodged due to pressure exerted by villagers. The testimony of other prosecution witnesses as well as the medical evidence also do not support the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest 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 8 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; 9 (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 10 Court.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Mallappa (supra) has reiterated the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal and has held that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted and that a legally plausible view taken by the Trial Court cannot be interfered with unless the findings suffer from perversity, illegality, or manifest error of law or fact. 15. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court represents a possible and legally sustainable view based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. No perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference with the order of acquittal. In view of the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, and consequently, the acquittal in favour of the respondents calls for no interference. 16. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV