1 2026:CGHC:4290-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 10 of 2025 • XYZ ...Appellant/Victim versus 1. Bhagwat Prasad Sahu, S/o Shri Badri Prasad Sahu, aged about 38 Years, R/o Village Temary, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (CG). 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Komakhan, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 27.01.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Heard on admission. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/victim arises out of the judgment dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Case No. H-09/2022, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 of the charges under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, ‘the Act, 2012’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.12.2021, victim, aged about 23 years, lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Komakhan, AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.01.28 16:55:13 +0530 2 alleging therein that accused/respondent No.1 had established physical relations with her on several occasions over the past 11 years on the false pretext of marriage and when she insisted upon marriage, accused/respondent No.1 refused to marry her and discontinued contact with her. On the basis of the said written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused/respondent No.1. 3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3. After obtaining the consent of the victim and her parents, victim was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-2 Dr. G.Y. examined her and opined that sexual intercourse had taken place with the victim; however, he did not notice any injury on the person of the victim either internally or externally and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-6. Vide Ex.P-4, high school mark-sheet of the victim was seized. Vide Ex.P-8, clothes of the victim and vide Ex.P-12, underwear of the accused/respondent No.1 were seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-19), no seminal spots or human spermatozoa were found on the seized articles. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent No.1 before the concerned trial Court. The accused/respondent No.1 abjured his 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 charges 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 of the 3 aforesaid charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-1 (victim), to establish that victim was minor and that accused/respondent No.1, on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her 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 No.1. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable 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. 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.The first question for consideration before this Court is whether the learned trial Court is justified in holding that the victim/prosecutrix was not below 18 years of age on the date of the incident. 11.In order to ascertain the age of the victim, she was examined as PW-1. In her evidence, she categorically admitted that she had attained majority in 4 the year 2017. Though the prosecution brought on record the high school mark-sheet of the victim showing her date of birth as 05.07.1998, but it has not been established by the prosecution as to on what basis and by whom the said date of birth was recorded. The prosecution failed to produce the admission register, transfer/admission form or the evidence of the person who admitted the victim to the school in support of the said entry. In the absence of any reliable oral or documentary evidence to conclusively establish the age of the victim, the learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, was justified in holding that at the time of the incident, victim was major and above the age of 18 years. Accordingly, we affirm the said finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 12.Next question for consideration is whether the respondent No.1/accused is the author of the crime in question. 13.PW-1 (victim) herself admitted in her evidence that while she was studying in Class X, she came to know from the wife of accused/respondent No.1 that accused/respondent No.1 was already married. She further admitted that when she was in the final year of her graduation, accused/respondent No.1 took her to Tirupati, where they stayed for about one week at Annapurna Hotel and during their stay at Tirupati, accused/respondent No.1 established physical relations with her regularly. She also admitted that she had attained majority in the year 2017 and that during that period, accused/respondent No.1 used to meet her every fifteen days and on such occasions, would take her to a hotel and establish physical relations with her. She further admitted that in the year 2017, when accused/respondent No.1 first took her to a hotel and established physical relations with her, 5 she did not disclose the incident to her friends or family members and that even after returning to the village, no complaint was lodged by her in respect of the said incident. She also admitted that from the year 2017 to 2021, she and accused/respondent No.1 used to meet regularly and during this period, physical relations were established between them. She further admitted that from 2018 to 2020, she worked as a nurse at Avanti Hospital, Raipur and during that period, she never complained to any hospital staff or friends regarding any forcible physical relations with the accused/respondent No.1. She further admitted that accused/respondent No.1 had physical relations with her for about four years and that she did not inform her parents about the same. She also admitted that accused/respondent No.1 would first go to a hotel in Raipur and thereafter call her, upon which, she would go to meet him. She further admitted that she had accompanied accused/respondent No.1 on trips to Allahabad, Tirupati and one or two other places. She also admitted that while travelling from her sister’s residence to Raipur Railway Station, she did not raise any alarm or inform anyone about the incident. She further admitted that due to continuous physical relations with accused/respondent No.1, she became pregnant four to five times, but she neither informed her parents nor lodged any complaint against accused/respondent No.1. She also admitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she had admitted to having a love affair with accused/respondent No.1. Although the victim stated that accused/respondent started establishing physical relations with her when she was 13 years old, but the victim did not disclose the said fact to any of her family members nor lodge any report at that time and also there is no reliable evidence on record to prove the same fact. Therefore, the allegation that the accused had established physical relations with her 6 at that time is not proved. 14.Thus, from perusal of the evidence of the victim, it is quite vivid that there was a love affair between the victim and accused/respondent No.1 and that victim was a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence. It is further evident that she travelled and stayed with accused/respondent No.1 at different places on her own free will. No resistance was offered by her during the course of such travel and stay, nor did she lodge any complaint or raise any alarm before any nearby person while travelling or staying with accused/respondent No.1. These circumstances clearly indicate that the allegations of forcible acts are not established against accused/respondent No.1. The learned trial Court, after elaborately discussing and analyzing 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 accused/respondent No.1 of the charges leveled against him by extending the benefit of doubt. 15.After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent No.1 of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 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 7