1 2026:CGHC:2123-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 167 of 2018 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through- the In-charge Out Post Ghotiya, Police Station Lohandiguda, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Nakul Baghel, S/o Mangtu Baghel, aged about 27 Years, Caste- Muriya, R/o- Village Bade Chakwa, Out Post Ghotiya, Police Station Lohandiguda, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 14.01.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bastar at Jagdalpur, C.G., in Sessions Case No.50/2017, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-1 prosecutrix, aged about 21 years, lodged an oral report at Police Station Lohandiguda, alleging that in February, 2017, about three to four days prior to Chitrakoot Fair, at around 8:00 p.m., she was alone at her house as her family members had gone to village Alnar for some work. Taking advantage of her being alone, AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.01.15 16:50:30 +0530 2 accused/respondent came to her house and on a false promise of marriage, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent. As a result of the said act, she became pregnant for about three months. On the basis of the said report, FIR (Ex.P-16) was registered against the accused/respondent. 3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-1. After obtaining her consent, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-8 Dr. S.P. examined her and did not notice any injury on the person of the prosecutrix either internally or externally and also did not give any definite opinion regarding commission of sexual intercourse and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-5. Accused/respondent was taken into custody vide Ex.P-9. Vide Ex.P-4, vaginal slides, swabs and underwear of the prosecutrix were seized. Vide Ex.P-8, underwear of the accused/respondent was also seized. The seized articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination and the FSL report (Ex.P-14) has been brought on record. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondent 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 of charge leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent of the aforesaid charge by recording perverse findings. She further submits that there is 3 ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-1 prosecutrix, to establish that on the false pretext of marriage, the accused/respondent established physical relations with the prosecutrix on several occasions and subsequently refused to marry her. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is no cogent or clinching evidence on record to show that the respondent is the perpetrator of the crime in question. Thus, the learned trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence on record, has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Appellant/State deserves to be dismissed. 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. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent was charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC on the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix. In order to establish the said charge, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1. In her testimony, particularly during cross-examination, she admitted that when the accused/respondent came to her house, she did not raise any alarm or call for help. She further admitted that she did not disclose the incident to her parents. She also admitted that the accused/respondent came to her house at night and left after about one hour, and even thereafter she did not disclose the alleged incident to anyone. She further admitted that on the date of the incident, her family members had gone to attend a family function in another village and returned only the next morning, and even then she did not inform them about the incident. She also admitted that she had gone alone from her village to visit Chitrakoot Fair and while returning, she accompanied the accused/respondent. She further admitted that she returned to her village hiding from the people. She categorically admitted that she did not disclose the incident to anyone because whatever had happened was with her consent. She further admitted that even after the Chitrakoot Fair, she continued to have physical relations with the accused/respondent at her house. She also admitted that she lodged the report only after she became pregnant, and that had she not become pregnant, she would not have lodged the report against the accused/respondent. 11.From perusal of the evidence of the prosecutirx, who was admittedly, a major lady, it appears that she was a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence and that was the reason as to why she has not lodged the report against the respondent, when the alleged offence was committed 5 upon her by him. Taking note of her testimony, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in holding that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and in acquitting the accused/respondent of the alleged offence. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record, so as to warrant any interference in this acquittal appeal. 12. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh