1 CGHC010157582024 2026:CGHC:42339-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1558 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Sunil Salame S/o Jaipal Salame, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kohka, Post- Tumdibod, Police Station- Lalbagh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Buxy, Deputy Government Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar Order on Board 29.09.2026 Per Narendra Kumar Vyas, J 1. The default(s) pointed out by the Registry is/are overruled. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 535 days in preferring the petition. 3. On due consideration, the same is allowed and delay in filing the instant petition is hereby condoned. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 4. Also heard on admission. 5. The petitioner/State has sought leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.08.2022 passed in Case No.72/2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences under Sections 376 (2)(n), 323 and 506 Part – II of IPC and Sections 6 & 7 of C.G. Tonhi Pratadna Redressal Act, 2005. 6. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the husband of the victim (PW- 6) died on 15.02.2018, thereafter she obtained compassionate appointment in the Police Department in place of her deceased husband. The parents of the victim used to visit the accused’s house for treatment. As the victim was also suffering from ill health and abdominal pain, she started taking treatment from the accused. In December 2020, the accused visited the house of the victim and told her that a Shanti Path (religious ritual) was required to cure her ailment and the same had to be performed in isolation. Believing his words, the victim sent her siblings to the village. 7. On 25.12.2020, the accused came to her house and, finding her alone, forcibly established physical relationship with her and told her that her ailment would be cured. When the victim stated that she would disclose the incident to her family members, the accused threatened her that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, she and her child would suffer an untimely death. Out of fear, she did not disclose the incident to anyone. Taking advantage of the said fear, the accused 3 again forcibly established physical relationship with her on 21.05.2021 and threatened and assaulted her whenever she spoke of disclosing the incident. Being disturbed by the conduct of the accused, the victim informed her family members about the incident on 30.05.2021 and thereafter submitted a written complaint at Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon (Ex.P-7). 8. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 282/2021 was registered against the accused on 30.05.2021 at Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam (Ex.P-8). During investigation, the underwear of the victim was seized (Ex.P-14) and her medical examination was conducted by Dr. Swapnil Upadhyay (PW-7), including examination of her private parts, was conducted with her consent (Ex.P-9). As per medical reports (Exs.P-11 & 12) proved by Dr. Swapnil Upadhyay (PW-7) no injury was found on the body of the victim. Wheels of investigation started running and the accused was arrested on 30.05.2021 (Ex.P-20). Accused was medically examined vide Ex.P-5. 9. The vaginal slides were prepared during the medical examination of the victim and the same has been sent for chemical examination along seized underwear of the victim and the accused. The FSL report (Ex.P/26), has been found negative. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 10. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate 4 First Class, Rajnandgaon, committed the case to the Court of Session, and the case was thereafter received by this Court on transfer. Charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 323 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam were framed against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 11. The prosecution to bring home the offence has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents whereas in defence, accused has not examined any witness however, exhibited 13 documents. Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the allegations, claimed false implication and pleaded innocence. 12. The victim (PW-6), in her cross-examination, admitted that she is highly qualified and posted as a Constable in the Police Department on the basis of compassionate appointment. She has also admitted that when the lockdown was in force in the year 2021, she was keeping the accused in her quarter, and thereafter, the accused went to her home also. She has also admitted that, after completion of the lockdown, she had gone to the Mantralaya along with her father, and at that time, the accused was with her. She has also admitted that she had made physical relationship with the respondent in the quarter as well as at her house. She has also admitted in paragraph 19 that she had physical relationship with the accused for at least about six months. She has also admitted in paragraph 24 that the Doctor (PW-7), who examined her, deposed before the trial Court that no injury was found on the body of the victim as well as on her private parts (Ex.P-11 to 5 Ex.P-12). 13. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and also considering the age of the victim/complainant, as well as the fact that she was a consenting party and even the Doctor (PW-7), who had examined the victim, has not given any opinion that she was subjected to forcible intercourse by the accused. Similarly, the FSL report (Ex.P- 26) has also found negative. The learned trial Court has also considered the fact that there was a delay of about five months in lodging the FIR (Ex.P-8) as the first alleged incident was on 25.12.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 30.05.2021, without any proper explanation for the same. Considering these aspects of the matter, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused which is being challenged by this CRMP. 14. Learned State counsel would submit that the trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused by recorded a perverse finding which warrants interference of this Court, therefore, the instant CRMP deserves to be admitted. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/State and have carefully gone through the record as well as the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 16. Upon appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, particularly the statement of the victim (PW-6), it is evident that she had been maintaining close acquaintance with the accused and had admitted that she was keeping the accused in her quarter and that he used to visit her house on several occasions. She further admitted that she had travelled with the accused and had physical relationship with 6 him not only in her quarter but also at her house. She also admitted that such physical relationship continued for about five to six months. The aforesaid admissions of the victim, coupled with her conduct, do not support the allegation that the physical relationship was forcibly established by the accused on the occasions alleged by the prosecution. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the victim was the consenting party, does not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality warranting interference of this Court. 17. Furthermore, Dr. Swapnil Upadhyay (PW-7), who had medically examined the victim, did not find any injury on her body or private parts, as reflected from the medical reports (Exs.P-11 and P-12). The FSL report (Ex.P-26) was also negative. Thus, the medical and scientific evidence does not lend corroboration to the allegation of forcible intercourse. In view of the aforesaid evidence and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Court is a possible view based on the evidence available on record, and no perversity or illegality is found in the impugned judgment of acquittal warranting interference by this Court. 18. 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 1 dealt with the issue when an appellate Court can interfere in the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and held in 1 2025 INSC 114 7 paragraph 12 as under:- “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.” 19. 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. 20. Consequently, the instant CRMP is dismissed in limine without notice to other side. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Akhil