An appellate court should not interfere with a legally plausible view taken by the Trial Court in an acquittal appeal unless there is manifest perversity, illegality, or error of law, particularly when the prosecutrix admits the act was consensual.

NAFR

Judgment on Board

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

04/02/2026

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Civil District–Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 46/2016, whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 376(D) and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 17.03.2016, the prosecutrix, a resident of village Hariharpur, had accompanied Bhupdev Singh to Ramanujganj for purchasing medicines for her mother. At about 2:00 a.m., Bhupdev Singh left her for court work, leaving her seated by the roadside. At that time, two persons arrived in a Tata Magic vehicle, forcibly abducted her and took her to Mitgai Road near the hill temple at Ramanujganj and thereafter into a nearby forest. It is alleged that accused Firoz first committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and thereafter accused Amanuddin also raped her against her will. After the incident, both accused fled away after robbing her of her mobile phone and Rs.60/-. The prosecutrix returned on foot and disclosed the incident to Ramnath Singh and Abdul Manan, who brought her to Ramanujganj. The FIR (Ex. P/1) was registered, spot map (Ex. P/3) prepared and the prosecutrix was medically examined after due consent (Ex. P/2). Her clothes were seized and sealed. The accused were medically examined and their undergarments seized. The robbed mobile phone and cash were recovered from accused Amanuddin. Statements of witnesses were recorded and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 10.05.2016. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 376(D) and 392 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The statements of the accused/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded innocence, alleging false implication. No evidence was adduced by the accused/respondents in defence.

4. Upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges under Sections 376(D) and 392 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from serious legal infirmities and perversity, as the evidence on record has not been appreciated in its correct perspective. The testimony of the prosecutrix is clear, cogent and trustworthy, wherein she has categorically deposed about the forcible sexual assault committed by the respondents/accused. It is a settled position of law that conviction can safely be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and minor inconsistencies or trivial discrepancies do not erode the core of the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court has further failed to apply the binding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases relating to sexual offences, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. The recovery of the prosecutrix’s mobile phone and Rs. 60/- from the possession of accused Amanuddin vide Seizure Memo Ex. P/8 provides strong corroborative evidence establishing the involvement of the respondents/accused in the commission