1 2026:CGHC:7272-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 78 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Satish Banjare S/o Shri Santosh Banjare Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Nawagaon (Jhanjh), Police Station- Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. For complainant : Ms. Shalini Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ Judgment on Board (10th February, 2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 26.7.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in ST No.128/2016 acquitting the respondents/accused of the charge under Section 376(1) of IPC and convicting him u/s 323 of IPC only and sentencing to fine of Rs.1000/-, with default sentence of 15 days’ SI. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.04.2016 at about 8:00 p.m., the victim had gone to the open field for easing herself along the sister- in-law of her younger sister. At that time, the accused arrived and, 2 questioning why she did not talk to him, abused her verbally and assaulted her with fists, causing injuries. She sustained injuries on her head, lips, left hand, wrist, and chest, including nail scratches. Thereafter, the accused caught hold of the victim’s hand and took her to the nearby forest, where he confined her throughout the night and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. On 16.04.2016 at about 6:00 a.m., she was released, after which she returned home and informed her family about the incident. A village panchayat was subsequently convened and the victim lodged a report whereupon offence under Crime No.60/2016 under Sections 376 and 323 of IPC was registered vide Ex.P/1. Her medical examination was done, spot maps were prepared, wearing apparels of the victim and the accused were seized and sent for chemical examination; statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing usual investigation charge sheet under Sections 376 and 323 of IPC was filed against the accused followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial Court which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 03. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 09 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. However, no witness was examined by him in defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge u/s 376(1) of IPC and convicted and sentenced him under Section 323 of IPC by the impugned judgment as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 3 05. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court ought to have considered that the prosecutrix categorically stated about the act of the accused in her police statement as also in the statement u/s 164 of CrPC and the trial Court that he committed rape upon her but the same was disbelieved by the trial Court and it only held him guilty of causing simple hurt to her. The medical evidence has also been not properly appreciated by the trial Court which supports the version of the prosecutrix. Learned trial Court has committed an illegality by giving too much weightage to minor and irrelevant contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses whereas looking to the overall evidence and conduct of the accused, it is crystal clear that on the of incident the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside to the extent it records acquittal of the accused of the charge u/s 376(1) of IPC and consequently, convict him thereunder with appropriate sentence. 06. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant also supports the contention of learned counsel for the State. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having minutely examined the oral and documentary evidence rightly recorded a finding of acquittal of the charge u/s 376(1) of IPC in favour of the accused and there is nothing on record to suggest that the said finding is unjust or perverse. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 4 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 accused was charged under Sections 376(1) and 323 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court acquitted him of the charge u/s 376(1) of IPC and convicted and sentenced him u/s 323 of IPC as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 10. PW-1 prosecutrix states that on 15.4.2016 at about 8 pm she along with her friends had gone to the open field for easing herself where the accused reached, beat her and thereafter forcibly took her into a forest where he committed rape upon her. Next morning, the accused called his maternal uncle, brother, Bhuru and Mahettar over phone and went away leaving her there. She then rerturned home and narrated the incident to her family members and thereafter lodged report Ex.P/1 which bears her signature from A to A part. She admits her signature on the consent form Ex.P/3, seizure Ex.P/4 whereby her nighty and petticoat were seized and her statement before the Magistrate Ex.P/5. In cross-examination she denies the suggestion that there is love affair between the accused and herself for the last four years. She also denies the statement from B to B and C to C part made in the FIR (Ex.P/1). She admits that the accused and his family members were complaining that the accused does not want to come to her, she compells him to come to her by making repeated phone calls and then volunteers that all these are false allegations. In para 26 she admits that at the place where she was present with the accused, the accused made a mobile phone call and summoned his maternal 5 uncle, brother, Bhuru, and Mahatru. After arriving there, they did not have any conversation with either her or the accused. On their own, they abused verbally and left, stating that henceforth the matter would be dealt with by the police. In para 31 she admits that those persons began to quarrel with her by accusing her of enticing and taking the accused along with her. She admits that during this dispute, those persons assaulted her. All of them beat her with fists and hands as a result of whch she sustained scratches on her hand, lips, neck, and other parts of her body. 11. PW-2 father of the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. The prosecution cross-examined him where he denied all the suggestions of the prosecution. In para 9 he states that the statement regarding not keeping her in the house pertains to the time after returning home from the panchayat, and that day was the 16th. He had told the victim/prosecutrix that if she continued such conduct, he would not keep her in the house, because she used to go out at night with a boy. There were small children in the house, and considering the impact this might have on them, he made that statement. In para 10 he admits that on the next day, when the victim returned home, she herself did not tell him anything. After the victim returned, a village panchayat was convened at about 10:00 a.m. where the victim stated that she wanted to live in the house of the accused. He admits that the victim wanted to live with the accused due to a love relationship with him. 12. PW-3 Smt. Rohini, friend of the prosecutrix, states that on the date of incident the accused beat the prosecutrix. PW-4 Dr. Padamja Dubey medically examined the prosecutrix on 18.4.2016 and noticed some abrsions on back side of her neck, hands and back. However, she did not find any 6 internal injury, she prepared her vaginal slides and handed it over to the constable in sealed condition for chemical examination. However, she did not give any opinion in her report Ex.P/6 regarding intercourse being done with the prosecutrix or not and stated that the same can be procured only after chemical examination of the slides. As per FSL report (Ex.P/20), semen was found on the petticoat and vaginal slide of the prosecutrix. 13. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, especially the evidence of the prosecutrix and her father, and rightly observed that her evidence is not reliable to the extent of her rape by the accused. In the FIR, she has clearly stated that she had love affair with the accused since last four years and due to some disputes, they are not on talking terms for the last two months. She also admitted that the family members of the accused beat her for having relations with the accused. Thus, looking to the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, in particular of the prosecutrix, her conduct during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. However, the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses including the medical evidence prove that on the date of incident the accused caused simple hurt to the prosecutrix. Being so, the finding of acquittal of the accused of the charge u/s 376(1) of IPC and his conviction u/s 323 of IPC as also sentence awarded thereunder by learned trial Court are based on just and proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record which need no interference by this Court. 7 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- “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 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.” 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment and for the reasons stated above, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is hereby dismissed. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.02.12 11:25:23 +0530