1 2026:CGHC:18262-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1129 of 2026 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhanpuri District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Phool Kumar Nag S/o Late Rajman Nag R/o Village Madhota Khairgudapara Police Station - Bhanpuri District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the petitioner/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the instant petition. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.04.23 11:07:15 +0530 2 application and accordingly, I.A. No.01 is allowed and delay of 45 days in filing the instant petition is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.60/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.), whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence punishable under Sections 376(3), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The brief gist of the prosecution case is that on 25.10.2023, the victim (PW-1) lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) at Police Station, Bhanpuri, stating that in the year 2019, when she was studying in Class 10th, she was a minor. During that period, the accused Phool Kumar Nag, who resided in front of her house in the same village, expressed his desire to marry her by stating that he liked her. The victim (PW-1), however, declined, stating that she was still young and pursuing her studies. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter, the accused persistently followed and harassed the victim (PW-1), and in February 2019, he took her to bushes situated behind the primary school and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will on the pretext of love and promise of marriage. When the victim (PW-1) resisted and 3 threatened to disclose the incident to her family members, the accused allegedly threatened to kill her. Owing to such threats and fear, she did not disclose the incident to anyone. 6. It is further alleged that thereafter, the accused continued to establish physical relations with the victim (PW-1) against her will on several occasions. In March 2023, the victim came to know that she had become pregnant. Upon informing the accused, he assured her that he would marry her shortly. However, when the pregnancy advanced and the victim disclosed the incident to her family members, they approached the accused for marriage, but he absconded without informing anyone. 7. On the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P/1), a First Information Report (Ex.P/2) was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and the matter was taken up for investigation. 8. During the course of investigation, the Class 10th mark-sheet of the victim (Article A/1) was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/5) in presence of witnesses. A knife allegedly used in the incident was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6). The guardianship certificate (Ex.P/10) was obtained from the father of the victim (PW-3) to establish her date of birth. On the basis of the memorandum of the victim (PW-1), a spot map (Ex.P/3) was prepared. Thereafter, Patwari Nitish Dewangan (PW-4) prepared a Panchnama (Ex.P/11) and a Patwari site map (Ex.P/12), which were forwarded to the Tehsildar, Bastar through Tahrir (Ex.P/13). 4 The victim (PW-1) was medically examined at CHC, Bhanpuri after obtaining her consent (Ex.P/4) and that of her mother (PW-2) (Ex.P/8). The medical examination report (Ex.P/18), detailed medical report (Ex.P/19) and sonography report (Ex.P/14) were obtained. The vaginal smears and swabs collected during examination were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/16). Consent for DNA examination was obtained (Ex.P/7), and DNA profiling was conducted. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/9), and information regarding his arrest was recorded (Ex.P/20). The accused was also medically examined, and his medical report (Ex.P/15) was obtained. On 10.11.2023, the seized articles, namely Exhibit-A (vaginal smears) and Exhibit-B (vaginal swabs), were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur through Tahrir (Ex.P/21). The receipt thereof is Ex.P/22 and the chemical examination report is Ex.P/23. During investigation, statements of the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and her father (PW- 3) were recorded (Ex.D/1, Ex.D/3 and Ex.D/4 respectively). 9. After completion of investigation and upon finding sufficient incriminating material, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 before the Court of concerned jurisdictional Criminal Court and thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 10. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused 5 persons under the aforesaid provisions. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. Their statements were recorded, wherein they denied the prosecution allegations. In order to bring home the offences, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents. 11. After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2025, hence, the present CrMP has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 12. Learned State counsel, assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal, submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is manifestly illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has erred in discarding the cogent and reliable testimony of the victim (PW-1), who has consistently and categorically deposed that the respondent/accused established physical relations with her against her will on the false promise of marriage and under threat to her life. It is further submitted that her testimony is duly corroborated by the statements of her family members (PW-2 and PW-3) as well as documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P/5 (mark-sheet) and Ex.P/10 (guardianship certificate), which clearly establish that the victim was a minor aged about 15 years at the time of the first incident, thereby attracting the rigours of the provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act. It 6 is further argued that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled legal position that the sole testimony of the victim, if found reliable, is sufficient to sustain conviction and does not require corroboration. Even otherwise, in the present case, the prosecution evidence stands corroborated by medical and scientific evidence, including Ex.P/14 (sonography report) and the FSL report (Ex.P/23). Learned State counsel further submits that the question of consent is wholly immaterial in view of the age of the victim being below 18 years and, in any case, the alleged consent was vitiated by misconception of fact and threat extended by the accused. It is thus urged that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside, and the respondent/accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged. 13. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 14. After appreciating the submissions advanced by both the parties and upon a thorough reappraisal of the entire material available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused/respondent, has elaborately held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has primarily observed that although the victim (PW-1) has alleged repeated sexual relations on the promise of marriage and threat, the evidence brought on record suffers from material contradictions, omissions and improvements, thereby rendering her testimony unreliable and not of 7 such sterling quality so as to base conviction solely upon it. 15. The learned trial Court has further recorded a finding that the prosecution case rests substantially on the testimony of the victim; however, her evidence is not consistent on material particulars, particularly with regard to her age at the time of the alleged first incident, the manner of occurrence and the surrounding circumstances. The Court has taken note of the fact that the victim has made contradictory statements regarding her age, at one stage stating herself to be major and at another stage claiming to be minor, thereby creating serious doubt about the applicability of the provisions of the POCSO Act. 16. It has also been observed that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of about four years in lodging the FIR, and the explanation offered by the prosecution does not inspire confidence in the facts of the present case, especially in light of the admissions made by the victim during cross-examination. The trial Court has further noted that there are material discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence as reflected in the site map (Ex.P/3) and the Patwari map (Ex.P/12), which casts doubt on the prosecution version. 17. The learned trial Court has further taken into consideration that the medical and scientific evidence does not conclusively support the prosecution case. Though the victim was found pregnant at the time of medical examination, no DNA report was produced to establish that the accused was the biological father of the child. The FSL report also did 8 not detect the presence of spermatozoa in the seized samples. Moreover, the alleged recovery of the knife has not been substantiated by the testimony of the victim herself. 18. Upon cumulative consideration, the trial Court has also found that the conduct of the victim, including her admissions regarding continued interaction with the accused, meeting him at different places and the circumstances leading to lodging of the report only after pregnancy was detected, probabilises the defence version that the relationship was consensual. The Court has further observed that the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged consent, if any, was obtained under misconception of fact or fear so as to attract the provisions of law. 19. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused committed rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim when she was a minor, or that he criminally intimidated her as alleged. The chain of circumstances and evidence led by the prosecution is found to be incomplete and not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 20. In view of the aforesaid detailed findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it is evident that the conclusions arrived at are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The findings cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or contrary to the material available on record so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9 21. Accordingly, this Court, upon independent reappraisal of the entire evidence and record, does not find any substantial or compelling reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 22. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 23. Thus, for the foregoing reasons and in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal does not disclose any substantial or compelling ground warranting interference. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court, particularly with regard to the material contradictions in the testimony of the victim (PW-1), the serious doubt arising about her age at the time of the alleged first incident, the unexplained delay of about four years in lodging the FIR, the inconsistencies regarding the place of occurrence, and the absence of conclusive medical and scientific evidence including non-production of 10 DNA report, are based on proper appreciation of evidence. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been demonstrated so as to persuade this Court to take a different view. It is well settled that unless the conclusions drawn by the trial Court are manifestly erroneous or wholly unsustainable, interference with an order of acquittal is not warranted. 24. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to point out any such infirmity in the impugned judgment which would justify reappraisal of the evidence so as to reverse the acquittal. The trial Court has rightly taken into consideration the admissions of the victim in her cross- examination regarding her continued interaction with the accused, the circumstances under which the report came to be lodged only after detection of pregnancy, and the lack of credible proof that the alleged consent, if any, was obtained under fear or misconception of fact. The view taken by the learned trial Court, therefore, is a plausible and reasonable view based on the material available on record, and merely because another view is possible, the same cannot be a ground to grant leave to appeal. 25. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu