1 2026:CGHC:15447-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 332 of 2023 • XYZ ...Appellant/Victim versus 1. Padman Patel, S/o Niranjan Patel, aged about 32 Years, R/o Village Jongra (Mudabhatha), Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir Chajmpa (New District Sakti) Chhattisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Mahila Thana Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 06.04.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Heard on admission. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/victim arises out of the judgment dated 24.05.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C.), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.58/2022, whereby the learned trial Court AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.04.07 17:05:01 +0530 2 acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 of the charge under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) by granting the benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.06.2022, victim, aged about 31 years, lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Sakti stating that accused/respondent No.1- Padman Patel, who is her brother-in-law (devar), used to visit her house frequently. She alleged that for about one year, from 28.06.2021 to 27.06.2022, the accused/respondent No.1 repeatedly had physical relations with her against her will and without her consent. She further alleged that initially the accused/respondent No.1 influenced her and thereafter forcibly established physical relations. She also stated that the accused took her photographs and videos and threatened to make them viral and defame her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused/respondent No.1. 3. During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent of the victim, she was sent for medical examination. PW-9 Dr. S.N.C. examined her and did not find any internal or external injuries on her person and gave MLC report (Ex.P-4). Accused/respondent No.1 was taken into custody vide Ex.P-17. Vaginal smear slides and other articles were seized vide Ex.P-13 and were sent to the FSL for chemical examination. As per the FSL report (Ex.P-23), no 3 seminal stains or human spermatozoa were found on the seized articles. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent No.1 before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondent No.1 abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 of the charge leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/victim submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent No.1 by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. He further submits that there is sufficient evidence available, particularly the testimony of PW-1 (victim), which clearly establishes that the accused/respondent No.1 repeatedly committed sexual intercourse with her by extending threats. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal and unsustainable, and the same deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/State supports the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/victim. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. Case of the prosecution mainly rests on the testimony of the victim (PW-1). In her examination-in-chief, she stated that accused/respondent No.1 was her brother-in-law (devar) in village relation and used to visit her house frequently. She deposed that in the year 2021, when her husband had gone to Sakti and her children had gone to school, the accused/respondent No.1 came to her house and forcibly established physical relations with her. She further stated that the accused took her photographs and video clips and threatened to make them viral and to inform her husband if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Thereafter the accused used to come whenever she was alone in the house and repeatedly established physical relations with her by extending such threats. She further deposed that on 25.05.2022, when her husband returned home in the evening, he saw the accused/respondent No.1 coming out of the house and running away. On being 5 questioned by her husband, she did not disclose anything at that time due to fear. Thereafter, a quarrel took place between them and on 26.05.2022, she went to her parental house. She also stated that only at her parental house, she disclosed the incident to her husband. Thereafter, after a compromise, she returned to her matrimonial home and subsequently lodged the written report against the accused/respondent No.1. However, in her cross- examination, several material admissions came on record. She admitted that for about one year prior to lodging the report, she had not disclosed the alleged acts of the accused/respondent No.1 to anyone. She further admitted that during this period, physical relations took place between them approximately 20 to 30 times and always when she was alone in the house. She also admitted that at the time when physical relations were first established, the accused did not have any photograph or video of her. She further admitted that she herself got the written complaint (Ex.P-1) typed at Janjgir and signed it after reading its contents. She also admitted that in her written complaint, she had stated that in the beginning, the accused/respondent No.1 influenced her and she came under his influence. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-9), she stated that one day the accused/respondent No.1 came close to her, took a selfie photograph, and thereafter physical relations started between them. She also admitted that disputes used to take place between her and her husband regarding the accused/respondent No.1. She 6 further admitted that on 23.05.2022, when her husband saw the accused/respondent No.1 running away from her house, she did not disclose about any physical relations to her husband and did not lodge any report against the accused at that time. She also admitted that during the entire period of one year, she did not disclose about the alleged physical relations to her neighbours or even to her family members at her parental home. 11. PW-2 husband of the victim stated that in May 2022, when he returned home after selling milk, he saw the accused/respondent No.1 running away from his house. He questioned his wife, but she did not disclose anything at that time and went to her parental home. He further stated that later, at her parental house, she informed him that the accused/respondent No.1 had been forcibly establishing physical relations with her. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had lodged a written complaint at Police Station Kotra Road, Raigarh against his wife/victim alleging that her character was not proper and that she had illicit relations with the accused/respondent No.1. He further admitted that on 23.05.2022, victim informed him for the first time about the alleged acts of the accused/respondent No.1 only when she was at her parental home. He also admitted that prior to 28.06.2022, he had not lodged any report against accused/respondent No.1. He also admitted that he had not seen any obscene photograph or video of the victim. He also admitted that in his presence, accused/respondent No.1 had never threatened either him or the victim. 7 12. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it appears that the victim was a consenting party with regard to the alleged acts, and therefore, she did not lodge any report against the accused/respondent No.1 for a considerable period of time. The evidence on record further shows that the matter came to light only when the husband of the victim saw the accused/respondent No.1 coming out of her house. Had he not seen this, the incident might not have come to notice at all. It is pertinent to mention here that if the relations were truly against her will, that would have been the most natural occasion for her to disclose the incident to her husband. However, she did not do so at that time and disclosed the incident only later at her parental home. This conduct of the victim does not appear natural in a case of repeated forcible sexual intercourse. Further, the victim herself admitted that for about one year prior to lodging of the FIR (Ex.P-2), physical relations took place between her and the accused/respondent No.1 on 20 to 30 occasions, always when she was alone, yet she did not disclose the matter to any person. It is also important to note that the victim admitted that at the time of the first alleged physical relation, the accused/respondent No.1 did not have any photographs or videos with him. Therefore, the explanation that she remained silent due to threat of making photographs or videos viral does not satisfactorily explain her silence from the very beginning. Moreover, PW-9, Dr. S.N.C., who medically examined the victim, did not find any external injury or mark suggestive of resistance or struggle. Apart 8 from this, there are material contradictions between the written report (Ex.P-1) and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and that they do not corroborate with each other. 13. The learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record, concluded that the victim was a consenting party and that the prosecution failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to establish the guilt of the accused/respondent No.1 and accordingly, acquitted him, by granting the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of 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 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; (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 9 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 Court." 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 16. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/victim against the acquittal of accused/respondent No.1 is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh