High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.31 17:58:13 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:37552-DB NAFR CRMP No. 2563 of 2023 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner Vinod Yadav S/o Vishwanath Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bata, Saraidih, Behind Government School, Police Station Samri, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Respondent For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 31.07.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2023 application for condonation of delay in filing of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for leave to appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 13.03.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 33/2019 by 2 the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surguja, District:Ambikapur, C.G. has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim is a divorced woman and she was working as a Nursing Aid in Mission Hospital Ambikapur, lives in a rented house with one of her daughter. In 2014 itself, she came in contact with the respondent. In July 2014, at night, the respondent came to the house of the victim and started told that he wants to marry with her, thereafter, the respondent started having physical relations against her will. It is alleged that whenever the victim talked to the respondent about marriage, the respondent used to make excuses in this regard. After that, the respondent told the victim that she belongs to another caste and he will not marry her. It is alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the respondent committed sexual intercourse with the victim for about five years and based on above facts, the victim lodged an FIR against the respondent for the aforesaid offence. 5. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. Statements of the respondent under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein he has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and he is innocent. 6. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 13.03.2023 acquitted the 3 respondent/accused herein from the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has erroneously disbelieved the testimony of the victim who clearly supported the prosecution and stated in clear terms that the respondent committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. He further submits that it is settled principle of law that in an offence of rape, the conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the victim. Hence, the impugned judgment requires to be set aside and the respondent deserves to be convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. 8. We have perused the judgment passed by the trial Court along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal with utmost circumspection. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surguja, District: Ambikapur (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 25:- “25. After considering the above evidence, the facts that have come before this court are that the accused and the victim known to each other prior to the incident and the accused used to meet with victim since long time. The victim got divorced from her former husband. The facts that have also come to light in the case are that the accused married the victim on 10-03-2018 at Radhakrishna Temple in Ambikapur and the victim had personally presented the 4 application before the Registration Officer for registration of marriage and an affidavit regarding the marriage was also executed in the court on 17th April 2018. It appears that the marriage of the victim was solemnized with the accused. The accused made physical relation with the victim for the first time in the month of July and thereafter he used to have physical relations with her every week, but the victim did not make complain anywhere. The complainant/victim has also not been able to tell how many times the accused made physical relations with her. The complainant/victim has lodged a report after five years of incident and no satisfactory explanation was given by the victim." 10. 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.” 11. In the present case, the victim and the respondent are well known to each other since long time. After that, the victim used to meet with the respondent and the respondent used to stay at night in the house 5 of the victim. It also appears that the respondent made physical relation with the victim many times, but she did not make any complaint to anyone. Apart from that, the victim had personally made application before the Registration Officer for registration of marriage and an affidavit regarding the marriage was also executed in the Court on 17 th April 2018, from which, it appears that the marriage had been solemnized between the victim and respondent. There is delay in lodging of FIR and the reason for the delay has not been explained by the victim. Hence, it is proved that the victim in the case was a consenting party. 12. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/State and other evidence available on record, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record. We do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and consequently, acquittal appeal is also dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib