1 2026:CGHC:8624-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 47 of 2021 • Karnlal Sahu, S/o Late Meghram Sahu, aged about 59 Years, R/o- Village- Bavanbudi, Post- Kashigarh, Police Station- Jaijaipur, Distt.- Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh). ...Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Outpost- Jaijaipur, Distt.- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh). 2. Harishankar Sahu, S/o Yadram Sahu, aged about 27 Years, R/o Bade Sipat, P.S.- Malkharauda, Distt.- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Palash Rajani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 18.02.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Heard on admission. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/father of the victim arises out of the judgment dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G., in Criminal Case No.33/2019, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 376 & 506 Part-II of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') on the basis of benefit of doubt. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.02.19 16:57:48 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.04.2019, victim, aged about 19 years, lodged a written report (Ex.P-5) at Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, alleging that on 03.05.2018, at about 3:00 pm, accused/respondent No.2, who was known to her, called her to village Bavanmudi and on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her without her consent and thereafter threatened to kill her parents if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Subsequently, when her engagement was solemnized with another person on 17.04.2019, accused/respondent No.2 demanded Rs.5 lakh and sent an obscene video of their physical relations to her fiancé through a mobile phone, as a result of which, her engagement was cancelled. On the basis of the said written report (Ex.P-5), FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered against the accused/respondent No.2. 3. During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent of the victim and her father (Ex.P-4), victim was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-7 Dr. N.S.C., examined her and did not notice any injury on her person either internally or externally, nor did she notice any sign of sexual intercourse, and accordingly gave the MLC report vide Ex.P-7. Accused/respondent No.2 was taken into custody vide Ex.P-13. Vide Ex.P-5, one video CD was seized. Vide Exs.P-10 & 19, the mobile phones of the fiancé of victim and accused were seized. Vide Ex.P-18, clothes of the victim were seized. However, the seized articles were not sent to FSL for chemical examination. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent No.2 before the concerned trial Court. The accused/respondent No.2 abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 3 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.2 of charges leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-2 (victim), to establish that the accused/respondent No.2, on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her and also threatened to kill her parents. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the State supports the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the material available on record. 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.” 4 10.The question that now arises for consideration is whether the accused/respondent No.2 is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 11.Prosecutrix (PW-2), in her deposition, stated that she and the accused/respondent No.2 were acquainted with each other and that the accused had obtained her mobile number and used to call her. On 03.05.2018, accused/respondent No.2 allegedly called her to village Bavanmudi near the river and on the pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her. She further stated that after her engagement with another man, accused/respondent No.2 demanded Rs.5 lakh and sent an obscene video to her fiancé. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that she was aware that the accused/respondent No.2 was married. She further admitted that at the time of the alleged incident, her clothes were not torn, she did not sustain any injury and no marks or scratches were found on her body. She also admitted that after her engagement, accused/respondent No.2 did not meet her. It is pertinent to note that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in May 2018, whereas the written report (Ex.P-5) and FIR (Ex.P-6) were lodged in April 2019, after the cancellation of her engagement. 12.This apart, PW-1 father of the victim, admitted that the accused/respondent No.2 neither demanded Rs.5 lakh nor threatened to kill them. He further admitted that no report was lodged against the accused/respondent No.2 prior to the cancellation of the victim’s engagement. This admission materially weakens the prosecution case with regard to the allegation of criminal intimidation. 13.Besides above, PW-5 brother-in-law of the victim, made a crucial admission in his cross-examination that there was a love relationship 5 between the victim and the accused/respondent No.2 and that the entire village was aware of it. He further admitted that the victim used to travel on the accused’s motorcycle and that her parents wanted to marry her at an early stage because of such relationship. He also admitted that the family with whom the victim was engaged had made inquires in the locality and after such inquiries, cancelled the engagement. This evidence suggests that the relationship between the parties was consensual and, therefore, weakens the prosecution case. 14.Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is evident that there was a love affair between the victim and the accused/respondent No.2 and that the victim appears to have been a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence. The record also shows that she used to travel with the accused/respondent No.2 on her own free will. Further, there is no material on record to show that, on the false pretext of marriage, the accused/respondent No.2 established physical relations with the victim or threatened her parents to life. Moreover, the delay in lodging the report, absence of any injuries on the person of the victim, admissions made by the prosecution witnesses and lack of reliable proof regarding the alleged threats create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. The learned trial Court, after elaborately discussing and analysing the evidence led by the prosecution, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the charges levelled against him by extending the benefit of doubt. 15.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:- 6 "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 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." 16. 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 appears to be a plausible and possible view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 17.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/father of the victim against the acquittal of accused/respondent No.2 is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh