##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5907-DB

Digitally signed

by RAVVA UTTEJ

KUMAR RAJU NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No. 166 of 2018

State of Chhattisgarh, through- the District Magistrate, Bemetara, District-

Bemetara (C.G.).

... Appellant

Versus

Navin Saluja, S/o Ramsharan Saluja, aged about 40 years, Occupation-

Shopkeeper, R/o- Krishna Vihar Colony, Bemetara, Police Station Bemetara,

District- Bemetara (C.G.).

... Respondent

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software.)

For State/Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.

For Respondent : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate.

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

Judgment on Board

Per , Rajani Dubey, J.

03/02/2026

1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against

the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.10.2017 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in

Sessions Case No. 18/2016, whereby the accused/respondent has

2

been acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Sections 376,

294, 506-B, 307 of IPC and under Section 67 of IT Act.

2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated are that the complainant filed a

written complaint on 10.11.2014 at the Bemetara Police Station

alleging that the accused/respondent Naveen Saluja had lured the

complainant and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her at

various locations for the past seven years on the pretext of marriage. In

2011, the complainant’s marriage with Vijay Gangwani of Takhatpur

was annulled by the accused/respondent as he showed Vijay

Gangwani the obscene photos and video clips of the complainant and

further the accused/respondent abused the complainant and her

parents by using filthy language and also threatened to kill them. On

09.11.2014, the accused/respondent attempted to run over the

complainant with his car. As such, on the basis of the written complaint,

the crime was found to have occurred and hence the Bemetara Police

Station registered an F.I.R. against the accused Naveen Saluja under

Crime No. 767/14 for offence punishable under Sections 376, 294,

506-B, 307 of IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act

and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the investigation

spot map of the incident was prepared, The medical examination of the

complainant/prosecutrix was conducted and necessary seizures have

been made. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, her statement was also

recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and charges were framed

against the accused/respondent.

3

3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was

filed against the present accused/respondent before the concerned

Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On

the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial

Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the offence under Sections

376, 394, 506-B, 307 of IPC and under Section 67 of the Information

Technology Act against which the present appeal has been filed by the

State/appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that though the scope

of interference with the order of acquittal is very limited but on the other

hand, the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation

of the evidence in the matter. It is settled law that if reappraisal of the

evidence goes to show that the finding of the acquittal recorded by the

learned trial Court is unjust and perverse, then the appellate Court is

empowered to set aside the same and reverse the order of acquittal

and convict the accused appropriately. The learned trial Court has

erred by acquitting the respondent of the offences levelled against him.

The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the

prosecutrix, her mother and father in its true perspective and has

succumbed to the conjectures and surmises. The learned trial Court

ought to have held that the prosecutrix did not consent f