1 2026:CGHC:17535-DB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 20-03-2026 17-04-2026 - 17-04-2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 20-03-2026 Judgment delivered on : 17-04-2026 ACQA No. 654 of 2019 Smt. Taran Bai W/o Barati Ram Lodhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Parasbod, P.S. Saja, District- Bemetara, Chattisgarh ... Appellant/complainant versus 1 - Girdhari Ram Lodhi S/o Late Rewaram Lodhi Aged About 43 Years R/o Parasbod, P.S. Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. PR Patankar and Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shashawat Rai, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ CAV Judgment Per Rajani Dubey, J Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 11.7.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in ST No.23/2016 acquitting the respondent No.1/accused of the charges under Sections 452 and 376/34 of IPC. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.8.2012 at 12 noon the prosecutrix lodged a report against respondent No.1/accused and co- accused Meenaram, who are her brothers-in-law (Devar), that last night at 1 am both the accused persons unauthorizedly entered her house and committed rape upon her turn by turn. When she tried to raise alarm, they threatened her of life and also hit on her head with a liquor bottle. Based on this report, offence u/s 376(2) (D), 506 Part-II, 323 and 450 of IPC was registered against them. During investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was done, spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. However, for want of sufficient evidence the police filed a closure report on 22.5.2013. Thereafter, the prosecutrix filed a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja and after recording statements of the prosecutrix and the witnesses u/s 200 and 202 of CrPC, complaint case under Sections 376(2) and 452 of IPC was registered against the accused persons and summons were issued to them. After appearance of the accused and committal proceedings, the matter was received for trial by learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara. 3 03. During the course of trial co-accused Meenaram died. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 452 and 376/34 of IPC against the respondent No.1/accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 06 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication due to property dispute. In his defence, he examined two witnesses. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent No.1/accused of all the charges by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. He submitted that learned trial Court was not justified in holding that the wounds suffered by the complainant were result of a motor accident and not that of a rape incident. It has erred by not considering the medical examination report of the prosecutrix which goes to show that the injuries suffered by the prosecutrix were result of her rape and subsequent hitting of bottle on her head as stated by her in her deposition. Learned trial Court did not consider the contents of the spot map wherein at para 1 it describes the spot where the accused at the time of rape hit the prosecutrix with bottle and the pieces of broken bottle and bangles were visible. PW-5 clearly stated that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix and she was carrying with her blood stained saree and there were stitches on her forehead. In cross- examination she stated that the prosecutrix told her that her life was in 4 danger. However, this evidence has not been properly appreciated by learned trial court. Merely on the basis of certain irrelevant contradictions and omissions learned trial Court recorded an erroneous finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The prosecutrix/complainant has categorically stated about the act of the accused and she remained firm in cross-examination also. Thus, looking to the overall evidence on record coupled with conduct of the accused, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondent/accused be held guilty of the charges leveled against him. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Wahid Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 AIR SCW 7410; Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 AIR SCW 5510; and State of UP Vs. Chhoteylal, 2011 AIR SCW 662. 06. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused would submit that the inconsistent statements were made by the complainant in her complaint and her testimony. She accepts in her deposition that walls of her house were nearly 10 feet high and could not be climbed by anyone without using some type of support. She also states that she was in deep sleep and did not raise any alarm when respondent No.1 and co-accused Meenaram allegedly entered her house and committed sexual assault. She states that she told about the incident to PW-4 but this witness has completely denied it. The independent witness PW-4 has turned hostile and further, husband of the complainant PW-5 and her aunt PW-6 have also not supported the version of the complainant. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly acquitted respondent No.1/accused of all charges. There is no substance in the instant appeal and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 5 Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Dola @ Dolagobinda Pradhan and another Vs. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695; Santosh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443; Mahendra Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 7 SCC 157; HD Sundara and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581; Mallapa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544; Babu Saheb Agouda Rudragoudar and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; judgment dated 24.4.2024 of High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in CRA No.388/1995 in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Devilal; and the judgment dated 8.7.2025 of this Court in CRA No.1735/2019 in the case of Shrawan Kumar Binjhiya and others Vs. State of CG. 07. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/State has duly assisted the Court. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the respondent No.1/accused was charged under Sections 452 and 376/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court acquitted him of both the charges by the impugned judgment. 10. PW-3 prosecutrix states that both the accused persons are real brothers of her husband. On 24.8.2012 at about 12 in the night while she was alone in the house and sleeping, by climbing the six-foot wall adjoining their roof, the accused persons came onto the roof and then entered the house by coming down the stairs. There is no door at the end of the staircase; it opens directly from the outer part of the house onto the open roof. Thereafter, they 6 committed rape upon her. They also hit on her head with an empty liquor bottle as a result of which she fell unconscious. She states that it being night, she did not go to police station and next day she informed about the incident to one Devlu Raut and thereafter went to police station Saja but her report was not written by Head Constable Anjor Lal as there was no Station House Officer. Next day on 27.8.2012 she went to the jail at Bemetara to meet her husband and on being asked when she told him that the police has not yet arrested the accused persons, he advised her to go to office of Superintendent of Police with copy of FIR. So on 27.8.2012 she went to the office of SP and submitted copy of FIR and next day went to Saja police station where TI told her that she lodged a false report and threatened her of sending to Vidhwa Ashram. When she told him of protesting, he sent her to the house of her maternal uncle at village Surujpura where she stayed for 2-3 days and then returned to her parental house at Bijetara. She states that when the police did not take any action on her report, she filed a complaint case before the Court. 11. In cross-examination she admits that both the accused persons are her real brothers-in-law (Devar). She states that there is land dispute between them and the accused persons. The land which was mutated in her name by her husband was got mutated by the accused persons in their name in connivance with the Patwari. She filed a case against this act of the accused but somehow the accused persons procured order in their favour. She states that she filed an appeal before the High Court and also a case before the Court at Bemetara. She states that today she does not remember the number of cases filed by them. She states that after this dispute she filed a case u/s 506 Part-II against accused Meenaram in which he was acquitted. She 7 admits that on the report of Meenaram, a criminal case was registered against her husband. She admits that after this incident, a case u/s 307 of IPC was registered against them for attempting to commit murder of Meenaram. She states that it was a simple fight and they were acquitted. 12. In para 17 she admits that 20-25 days prior to filing of this complaint case, she was released on bail in connection with offence u/s 307 of IPC. She admits that at that time her husband and son were not released on bail and they were in jail. She states that the walls of her house are ten feet high and it cannot be climbed without any support. In para 23 she states that when she went to police station for lodging report, Anjor Sahu (Head Constable) did not lodge her report as higher authority (SHO) was not there. In para 24 she states that even after arrival of SHO, no report was registered at her instance. In para 25 she states that the police officer told her that she has filed a false complaint against the accused, and she keeps filing false complaints. If she files such false complaints again, they will send her to a widow's home and told her to behave well with the accused. In para 29 she admits that she also filed a case against her parents seeking half of the share in the land. She denies the suggestion that on the date of incident, hand of accused Meenaram was fractured and it was plastered. In para 31 she admits that the main dispute between them is in relation to six acres of land which gave rise to all other disputes. In para 35 she admits that in all the cases instituted at their instance against the accused persons, decision was given in favour of the accused persons. 13. PW-1 Jagdish Chauhan, PW-2 Balram Verma and PW-4 Devlu Raut have not supported the prosecution case. Rather PW-2 admits that when the 8 police brought the prosecutrix, she was completely healthy and there was no injury on her body. PW-4 admits that in order to grab the land of the accused persons, the prosecutrix has implicated them in many cases. 14. PW-5 husband of the prosecutrix states that while he was in jail, her wife/prosecutrix came there and informed that the accused persons committed rape on her. In cross-examination he states on the false report of his brother u/s 307 of IPC, he was sent to jail. This report was lodged against his wife and son also and they remained in jail for this offence. He admits that in all those cases instituted by them against accused Meenaram, he was acquitted. He admits that civil cases were also decided in favour of the accused persons. In para 14 he states that his wife did not inform Kotwar or her mother-in-law or parents or anyone about the incident. In para 15 he states that यह कहना सह ह किक पुलि स वा  ना कह था किक तुम्हरी झूठी लिकयतु क आधारी पुरी आरीपुगण क किगरीफतुरी नाह करी!ग, तुम ऐस लिकयतु करीग तु तुम्ह! वा$द्धा आश्रम छोड़ दें!ग। यह कहना सह ह किक आरीपुगण क किवारूद्धा बारी- बारी करीना पुरी पुलि स वा  ना मरी पुत्ना क ग्राम सरीजपुरी छोड़ दिदेंय था। जिजस दिदेंना मरी पुत्ना घटना बातु रीह ह, उस दिदेंना आरीपु मनारीम क हथा म! प् स्टरी बा7धा था य नाह बा7धा इसक बारी म! मरी पुत्ना नाह बातुय था। 15. PW-6 aunt of the prosecutrix states that the prosecutrix informed her that the accused persons committed rape on her. She states that blood was oozing from her head injury and her saree and blouse were stained with blood which were kept in a bag. She states that there was stitch on her head and that she did not inform as to how she suffered head injury. 16. DW-1 Chandrashekhar and DW-2 Manish Singh Rajput supported the defence of the accused persons that there is land dispute between the parties. DW-1 states that he saw the prosecutrix gong on motorcycle with 9 someone and falling off the motorcycle. He states that she sustained injuries due to fall from motorcycle. 17. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecutrix is not a reliable witness. There is no oral or documentary evidence supporting her version and rather the evidence on record suggests false implication of the accused in this case. Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Babu Saheb Agouda Rudragoudar (supra) held in paras 41 & 42 of its judgment as under: “41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity: 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court.” 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 has held in para 42 as under:- “42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the 10 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 must 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.” 20. From bare perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, it is clear that her testimony suffers from material inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities. She alleged the incident occurred on 24.8.2012 but filed the complaint only on 25.6.2015, after nearly three years, with no explanation for delay. No police report or contemporaneous medical evidence was filed to corroborate rape or injury. Her claim that accused entered by scaling a 10- feet wall without support is contradicted by her own admission that it could not be climbed without aid. Key independent witnesses PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 did not support the prosecution; PW-4 specifically stated that she implicated the accused to grab land. PW-2 deposed that she had no injuries when police brought her. Admittedly, there was long-standing property dispute 11 over six acres, with multiple civil/criminal cases between parties decided in favour of the accused. The prosecutrix herself admitted that all cases filed by her ended in acquittal of accused. DW-1 gave alternate explanation for injuries—fall from motorcycle. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the overall evidence on record and the aforecited judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned trial Court rightly held the evidence unreliable and took a plausible view, warranting no interference by this Court. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant being distinguishable on facts are of no help to him. 21. In the result, the appeal being meritless is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.04.17 12:45:57 +0530