2026:CGHC:8793-DB Digitally signed by NAFR AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date:

2026.02.20 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

16:00:10 +0530 ACQA No. 57 of 2016 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

...Appellant versus

1. Piyush Bhai Majethia, S/o Shri Mannsukhan Bhai, aged about 28 Years, 2. Prakash Bhai Majethia, S/o Shri Mansukhan Bhai Majethia, aged about

38 Years, Both are R/o Village Sawarkundla, District Amreli, Presently R/o Suvidha Apartment House No. A-104, Bhola Nagar, Police Station Barcha, District Surat Gujrat.

3. Ganesh @ Ajay Sharma, S/o Late Deoraj Sharma, aged about 23 Years, R/o Balthankhurd, Police Station Jaatusana, District Rewadi Haryana.

... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate.

For Respondents : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

19.02.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 05.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court for Trial of Sexual Offences (Rape Cases) North Bastar, Kanker, C.G. in Sessions Case No.97/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 368/34, 370(3)/34. 376/34, 384/34 & 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) on the basis of benefit of doubt.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prosecutrix, aged about 24 years, lodged a report at Police Station Durgukondal alleging that accused/respondent No. 3- Ganesh @ Ajay Sharma, induced her on the pretext of providing employment and took her away from her village on 30.01.2014. It is alleged that she was taken to Raipur, Delhi and Haryana, where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse against her will. It is further alleged that she was sold at Nagpur for a sum of Rs.35,000/- and thereafter taken to Surat, where she was sold to accused persons, namely, Piyush (respondent No. 1) and Prakash (respondent No. 2), for a sum of Rs. 85,000/-. It is also alleged that accused- Piyush forcibly married the prosecutrix and subjected her to sexual exploitation. On the basis of the said report, FIR (Ex.P-35) was registered against the accused persons.

3. During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent of the prosecutrix, she was sent for medical examination, whereupon PW-9 Dr. S.K. examined her and did notice any external or internal injury over the person of the prosecutrix and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-4. Vide Ex.P-7, clothes of prosecutrix was seized. Vide Ex.P-18, clothes and other articles were seized from house of accused-Ganesh. Vide Exs.P-21 & P-22, mobile phones and other articles were seized from accused-Piyush & Prakash. However, seized articles were not sent to FSL for chemical examination.

4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. The accused persons/respondents abjured their 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 persons/respondents of the charges leveled against them.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the aforesaid charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is ample evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of PW-1 (prosecutrix), to establish that accused persons/respondents are the authors of the crime in question. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents. Thus, the impugned