1 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 CGHC010394022022 2026:CGHC:42148-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2057 of 2022  State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. … Petitioner versus  Gajanand Sen S/o Chandrahas Sen, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Village Chhata, P.S. Gobra Nayapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner/State :- Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate For Respondent :- None. (Division Bench) (Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar) Order on Board 28.09.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant CRMP. 2. On due consideration, the application is allowed and the delay of 31 days in filing the instant CRMP is condoned. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 3. Also heard on admission. 4. The State has preferred this CRMP assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 46/2020 arising out of Crime No. 63/2020, registered at Police Station Magarload for offence under Sections 376, 450 and 506 of the IPC. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has lodged complaint before the Police Station Magarload alleging that the complainant/victim along with her husband had visited to village Bhainsmundi, Thana Magarload, District Dhamtari, on 12.03.2020 to attain the marriage function. On the same day, at about 10:00 pm, when she was sleeping along with her children, accused Gajanand Sen came in the room and committed sexual intercourse upon her and also threatened her that if she discloses the incident to anyone he will kill her, so she did not disclose the said incident to anyone in Bhainsmundi. After returning her home at village Tarighat on 16.03.2020, she disclosed the said incident to her husband, however, on account of COVID-19 the complaint was not lodged in time. On 31.03.2020, she lodged the complaint and on the basis of said complaint FIR was registered. 6. After FIR, wheels of investigation started running and the victim 3 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 was subjected to medical examination on 31.03.2020. In the medical report (Ex.P/18) proved by Dr. Pushpa Janbandhu (PW- 6), no evidence of any external injury over the body and on the private part was found, however, in the internal examination hymen was found old and ruptured. Dr. Pushpa Janbandhu (PW- 6) has not given any definite opinion with regard to rape or sexual intercourse. Slide was prepared and sent for chemical analysis to FSL along with undergarments of the victim as well as the accused. As per FSL report on Article B (slide of the victim) human sperm was found, however, on Articles A & C (undergarments of the accused and the victim, respectively) nothing has been found. 7. After due investigation, accused was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 8. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents, whereas, accused, in support of his case, has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on 4 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 9. The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused. 10. The learned trial Court has recorded a finding at para 30 that previously there was love affair between the complainant and the accused which is supported by PW-7, sister-in-law of the complainant, who has categorically stated that the complainant had not informed this incident to anybody and when this fact came to the knowledge of her husband (PW-1) then she (PW-1) admitted the said fact. Thus, taking into consideration the evidence of complainant (PW-1) her husband (PW-2) and her sister-in-law (PW-7) the trial Court has admitted the fact of love affair between the complainant and the accused. 11. Further, the learned trial Court has recorded a finding in paragraph 32 that the complainant is a married women and she has also accepted physical relationship with her husband (PW-2). It has also been recorded that the complainant was examined on 31.02.2020 and though in the FSL report (Ex.P/31) human sperm was found, but there is no matching report of semen and, therefore, it could not be held that it was the accused who committed rape upon the complainant. Thus, the learned trial 5 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 Court has acquitted the accused, which is being challenged by the State before this Court. 12. Learned State counsel would submit that the finding of the trial Court with regard to acquittal suffer from perversity as the complainant (PW-1) in her evidence has categorically narrated the incident which has taken place. She would also submit that on the basis of statement of the complainant (PW-1), which is of sterling quality, the prosecution has proved its case. She would further submit that though the medical evidence is not a substantive evidence, but it is a corroborative evidence and on the basis of the statement of the complainant charge can be proved, however the same has been ignored by the trial Court. Therefore, she prays for admission of the present CRMP. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/State and gone through the records and the evidence available on record precisely. 14. From the statement of complainant/victim (PW-1) who has admitted in cross-examination that the place of occurrence was a marriage hall where so many rooms were there and also admitted that she has not raised any alarm to save herself, neither she attacked on the accused to save herself nor objected the accused while committing offence. She has further admitted the fact that at 6 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 the time of incident, her children were sleeping there. She has further stated that after the incident, she did not inform the said incident to anyone even for 20 days she did not disclose the said incident to anyone and also for that 20 days she did not disclose anything about the incident to her mother-in-law who used to live with her. 15. PW-2, husband of the complainant/victim, in cross-examination has stated that even after the alleged incident the complainant behaved normally in the family and admitted that from others, he got information that his wife has made physical relationship with any person and on being inquired by him, she disclosed the incident to him. He has further stated that after knowing the said incident he called the village meeting for his wife and the accused to deal with the issue and in the meeting, the villagers had told him to forgive his wife and lodged the complaint against the accused and then he was agree to keep his wife/complainant with himself. 16. PW-7, sister-in-law of the complainant/victim, in her examination she has stated that when PW-1 got the information about the relationship of the complainant with another man, then complainant informed about the incident. 7 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 17. The case of the prosecution is based upon the statement of victim, who is said to be a ‘sterling quality’, therefore, at this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the victim, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the victim is not believable. In the examination-in-chief, the victim has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall accused came inside and thereafter the accused committed rape. She has stated that she identified the accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. Even nothing is on record that there was a broken compound wall. She has further stated that in the morning at 10 O’clock she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However, according to the investigating officer a written complaint was given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is registered at 4:00 p.m. In her deposition, the victim has referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW1 and others. However, Shanti Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW5 -victim, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. There is a delay in the FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect to land. The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the solitary version of the victim – PW5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no 1 2020 (3) SCC 443 8 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.” 18. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nirmal Premkumar vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police2 has examined the issue and recorded its finding as under:- “24. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The state- ment of the victim ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution’s case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the victim, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.” 19. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of principle of law laid down in the above-stated judgments and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, it is quite vivid that the complainant who was a major and married woman has admitted the fact that at the time of incident she had not raised any objection or alarm at the time of incident which clearly indicates that she was the consenting party and also she did not disclose 2 (2024) 20 SCC 293 9 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 the incident to anyone for 20 days even her husband and mother- in-law with them she used live under the same roof. As such, the reasoning recorded by the trial Court for not accepting evidence of the complainant/victim as ‘sterling quality’ is correct finding and based on evidence available on reocrd and we hereby affirm the said finding of the trial Court. Further considering the medical report (Ex.P/22) no external injury was found over the body of the victim and also though in the FSL report (Ex.P/31) human sperm was found, but there is no matching report of semen available on record in support of the FSL report and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly observed that it could not be held that it was the accused who committed rape upon the complainant when the victim is a married woman. 20. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that if one view has been taken by the prosecution which is in favour of the accused, normally the appellate Court should not interfere in the case of acquittal, unless the finding is so perverse that only one view of conviction is possible for the appellate Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Anr vs. State of Uttarakhand 3 dealt with the issue when an appellate Court can interfere in the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and held in paragraph 12 as under:- 3 2025 INSC 114 10 CRMP No. 2057 of 2022 “12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 21. Considering the aforesaid law on the subject and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is neither perverse, nor illegal. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court do not suffer from any patent illegality, misappreciation of evidence, or manifest error of law warranting appellate Court interference. Consequently, the order acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him is fully justified and calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. As such, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal. 22. Consequently, the instant CRMP is dismissed in limine without notice to other side. Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Ankit