1 2026:CGHC:13101-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 797 of 2026 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ravindra Sahu S/o Dilbodh Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur ( Adhina) Salka, Police Station - Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Govind Sahu S/o Dilbodh Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur ( Adhina) Salka, Police Station - Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Virendra Sahu S/o Dilbodh Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Salka, Police Station - Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dilbodh Sahu S/o Late Ramkhelavan Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Salka, Police Station - Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.23 10:55:44 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State on I.A. No.01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 13 days. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application i.e. I.A. No. 01/2026, the same is allowed and the matter is heard finally. 3. By way of present petition filed under Section 419(3) of the BNSS, the State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned District & Upper Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 30/2021 by which, the respondent No.1 has been acquitted from charged under Section 354, 376, 324 & 506-B of the IPC and respondents No. 2 and 3 have been acquitted from charges under Section 354 & 506-B of the IPC and respondent No. 4 has been acquitted from charges under Section 506-B of the IPC. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.03.2019, when the victim (P.W.-1) was alone at her residence, accused Ravindra Sahu (Respondent No.1) arrived there and requested her to prepare tea. When the victim proceeded towards the kitchen, the accused followed her, and allegedly outraged her modesty by pressing her chest. Upon resistance by the victim, the accused is stated to have forcibly opened her salwar and committed sexual 3 assault by inserting his fingers into her private parts. The victim resisted and pushed the accused away, whereupon he apologized and fled from the spot. 5. It is further the case of the prosecution that, thereafter, on 10.04.2019, the victim approached the father of accused Ravindra Sahu to lodge a complaint regarding the said incident. During this course, she met co-accused Govind Sahu (Respondent No.2), the brother of respondent No.1, at a shop and narrated the incident to him. It is alleged that Govind Sahu called his brother Ravindra Sahu, and after some time, Ravindra Sahu along with Virendra Sahu arrived at the shop. The prosecution alleges that they pulled down the shutter of the shop, forcibly disrobed the victim, compelled her to perform oral sex, and recorded a video of the act. Thereafter, the father of the accused persons i.e. respondent No.4, allegedly reprimanded his sons but simultaneously threatened the victim with dire consequences and warned her not to disclose the incident to anyone, failing which the said video would be made viral. 6. The prosecution further alleges that on 03.10.2019, when the victim had gone to Salkabazar to purchase vegetables and was returning home, accused Ravindra Sahu again approached her and forcibly kissed her. Upon the victim raising alarm, the accused allegedly assaulted her with a knife, causing injuries to her hand and chest. Following this incident, the victim narrated the entire sequence of events to her family members. 4 7. Thereafter, the victim filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking directions for registration of an FIR against the accused persons. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Court below, the Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatgaon, registered FIR (Ex.P-11) vide Crime No. 194/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 376, 34, 324 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, namely Ravindra Sahu, Govind Sahu, Virendra Sahu and Dilbodh Sahu. 8. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons before the competent Court, and the case was committed for trial. 9. The learned trial Court, upon taking cognizance of the offences, framed charges under Sections 354, 376, 324 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code against accused Ravindra Sahu; under Sections 354 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code against accused Govind Sahu and Virendra Sahu; and under Section 506-B of the Indian Penal Code against accused Dilbodh Sahu. 10. The accused persons denied the charges and abjured their guilt, thereby necessitating a full-fledged trial. 11. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. However, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable 5 doubt and consequently acquitted all the accused persons of the offences alleged against them. 12. Learned State counsel submits that although the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited, it is equally well-settled that the appellate Court is vested with ample and wide powers to re-appreciate and re-evaluate the entire evidence on record. Where such reappraisal demonstrates that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are manifestly erroneous, perverse, or contrary to the material available on record, the appellate Court would be fully justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and recording a finding of conviction in accordance with law. In the present case, the learned trial Court has gravely erred in acquitting the respondents of the offences charged, as it has failed to properly appreciate the cogent and reliable evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The testimony of the victim (P.W.-1), which is of sterling quality, clearly supports the prosecution case and is consistent with her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as the contents of the FIR. Her deposition before the Court unmistakably establishes the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376, 324 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code, and the same has remained unshaken despite lengthy cross-examination by the defence. The learned trial Court has erred in discarding such vital evidence by placing undue emphasis on minor omissions and trivial contradictions, which are 6 natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Furthermore, the Court below has failed to give due weight to the medical evidence of P.W.-7 (Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo), who conducted the medico-legal examination of the victim and opined vide report (Ex.P-7) that although no completed sexual intercourse was found, there was clear indication of forceful attempt to commit the same, thereby corroborating the version of the victim. Even though the victim was declared hostile to a limited extent, her testimony, when read in its entirety, consistently supports the prosecution case, particularly with regard to the conduct, intention, and acts of the accused persons. It is trite law that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the only reasonable and plausible conclusion that emerges from the evidence on record is one pointing towards the guilt of the respondents. Hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court suffers from serious infirmities, is perverse and unsustainable in law, and is therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned judgment along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal. 7 14. The learned Special Judge, after a detailed appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the respondents/accused by holding that the testimony of the victim suffered from material contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies, thereby rendering it unreliable. It was observed that in paragraph 27 of her cross-examination, the victim made a statement contrary to her earlier version given in paragraph 26 regarding the route taken while returning from Salka Bazaar. While she initially described a particular route, she subsequently stated that she was proceeding through a footpath and further admitted in paragraph 28 that such a fact was neither disclosed in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor in her examination- in-chief, and was introduced for the first time before the Court. The Court further noted inconsistencies inter se the statements of the victim (PW-1), her sister (PW-2), and her mother (PW-3) regarding the route and surrounding locality. While one witness denied the existence of houses along the path, others admitted that several houses were situated there, though without clarity as to their ownership. Thus, even if the version of the victim regarding the place of occurrence was accepted, the presence of nearby residential houses created doubt, particularly in the absence of any independent corroboration. 15. The learned trial Court further held that the conduct of the victim during the alleged third incident was unnatural and inconsistent 8 with ordinary human behaviour. In her cross-examination (para 27), she admitted that she did not raise any alarm during the incident and only argued with the accused, despite alleging that the accused was armed with a knife and had assaulted her. At the same time, evidence on record, including that of her brother (PW- 2) and independent witnesses, established that the route in question was a public road with regular movement of people, shops, and residential houses nearby. Independent witnesses, including Shivratan (PW-5) and Rupnarayan Singh (PW-6), admitted that any commotion in the area would ordinarily be heard by nearby residents. Further, the site map (Ex.P-2), prepared at the instance of the victim, indicated the presence of nearby houses, including that of Umesh Agarwal, which the victim herself partially admitted. However, the said independent witness (PW-8 Umesh Agarwal) categorically deposed that CCTV cameras were installed at his residence and, upon checking the footage for the relevant date, no such incident or presence of the accused or victim was observed. The Court also noted serious lapses in the investigation, including failure to seize CCTV footage, non- examination of independent neighbours, and omission to collect mobile location data, which could have corroborated the presence of the accused and victim at the alleged place of occurrence. 16. The learned Special Judge also took into account the defence version suggesting false implication due to prior enmity involving 9 one Chandrakant Sharma. It was observed that documentary evidence (Ex.D-4 to Ex.D-9) and testimony of defence and independent witnesses indicated that Chandrakant Sharma had earlier been implicated in a criminal case involving a family member of the accused, and there existed a possibility of false implication of the accused persons in connivance with the victim. Independent witness Shivratan (PW-5) admitted that a certificate was issued by village members, including the Sarpanch, indicating that the accused had been falsely implicated. The Court further found that the victim failed to promptly disclose the alleged incidents to her family members, despite claiming that the first incident occurred in her own house where several family members were present. Her version regarding all three incidents was found to be inconsistent, unsupported by medical and independent evidence, and suffering from unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. In absence of any reliable corroboration, coupled with contradictions and improvements in her testimony, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. 17. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow this petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 10 18. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 19. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the CRMP seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet