1 2026:CGHC:8387-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 190 of 2018 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Outpost Lodam, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Istanislas Tirkey, S/o Philip Tirkey, aged about 50 Years, R/o Village Jhholanga, Police Outpost Lodam, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate. For Respondent : None, though served. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 17.02.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal, preferred by the appellant/State, arises out of the judgment dated 28.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.38/2017, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 457 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.04.2017, prosecutrix (PW-4), aged about 30 years, lodged a written complaint (Ex.P-6) stating AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.02.18 16:49:00 +0530 2 that in August 2015, at about 6-7 p.m., she, her husband (PW-3) and the accused/respondent consumed liquor at her house. After consuming liquor, she became heavily intoxicated and went to sleep. Thereafter, her husband left the accused/respondent to his house, returned home and slept. It is alleged that at about 11:00 p.m., accused/respondent came back, opened the door of the house and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her while she was intoxicated and unable to resist. On the next morning, she disclosed the incident to her husband. It is further alleged that the accused/respondent spread rumours in the village that he had slept with her, whereupon a village meeting was convened in which both parties were fined. It is the case of the prosecution that after about one week, an oral complaint was made at Police Outpost Lodam, but no action was taken. On the basis of the said written complaint (Ex.P-6), FIRs (Exs.P-7 and P-12) were registered against the accused/respondent. 3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-5. After obtaining her consent, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to District Hospital, Jashpur, where Dr. S.M. (not examined) examined her, did not notice any signs of recent sexual intercourse and gave MLC report (Ex.P-17A). Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. 4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court. The 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 charges 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 3 charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-4 (prosecutrix), which clearly establishes that on the date of the incident, accused/respondent came to her house and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has 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. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 8. 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.” 9. The question that arises for consideration is whether the accused/respondent is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 10. The prosecution mainly relies upon the testimony of PW-4 (prosecutrix). In her examination-in-chief, prosecutrix stated that on the date of incident, after consuming liquor, she went to sleep. During the night, she felt someone touching her and presumed that her husband was lying beside her. She did not state that she had seen the accused/respondent 4 committing sexual intercourse with her, nor did she narrate any specific act constituting rape. She further stated that on the next day, she came to know that the accused/respondent had spread rumours in the village that he had slept with her. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her husband frequently assaulted her on suspicion of her character and that she used to act according to his wishes out of fear of assault. She also admitted that earlier she and her husband were residing in the house of the accused/respondent and later shifted after constructing their own house under the Indira Awas Yojana, and during that period there was no dispute with accused/respondent. She further admitted that at the time of lodging the written report (Ex.P-6) and FIR (Ex.P-7), she did not inform the police that the accused/respondent had forcibly entered her house and committed sexual intercourse. She also admitted that in the Panchayat meeting held on 02.07.2015, she did not disclose any incident of rape. She additionally admitted that she had told the village women that the accused/respondent had not done anything to her and that she lodged the report because her husband frequently suspected her and physically assaulted her. It is also admitted by her that she filed the report out of fear of her husband, who had threatened that if she did not lodge the report, he would leave her at the house of accused/respondent. She also admitted that accused/respondent never made any statement in her presence suggesting that he had slept with her. Furthermore, PW-3 husband of the prosecutrix, also admitted that in the Panchayat meeting his wife/prosecutrix did not state that the accused/respondent had committed rape upon her. Apart from this, PW-1 Vandana Toppo and PW-9 Sheela Kujur, who were present in the Panchayat meeting, also deposed that the prosecutrix did not make any allegation of rape during the said village 5 meeting. 11. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it is evident that the prosecutrix has not made any clear and categorical statement that on the date of the incident, accused/respondent came to her house and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. On the contrary, she herself admitted that she lodged the police report out of fear of her husband, who had threatened that if she did not do so, he would leave her at the house of the accused/respondent. She also admitted that accused/respondent never made any statement in her presence suggesting that he had slept with her. In such circumstances, since the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case and her testimony is not reliable, the prosecution case itself becomes doubtful. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court, upon proper appreciation and evaluation of the evidence available on record, was justified in acquitting the accused/respondent of the said charges, which calls for no interference. 12.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh