2026:CGHC:8768-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 239 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mujgahan, District-

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus

1 - Mohammad Sohail @ Subodh Singh S/o Late Shri Kailash Prasad Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Raghunathpur, Police Station- Tajpur, District- Samastipur, Bihar, Present Address- Aviva Green City, Village-

Dunda, Police Station- Mujgahan, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Dhanesh Sahu S/o Shri Raghuram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Dunda, Police Station-Mujgahan, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Shivendu Pandya and Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocates.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ Judgment on Board (19^th February, 2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.82/2017 acquitting the respondents/accused of the charges under Section 376(2)(n), 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.10.2016 the prosecutrix made a written complaint to the police that she is 17 years old and studies in Class IX. About five months back during summer vacation she was at home; at that time her neighbour accused Dhanesh established physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage and repeated the said act whenever he found her alone. She further alleged that she used to work as maid in the house of one Arshi Bhabhi and there her husband accused Mohd. Sohail used to make physical relation with her on the threat of life. He made such relations 3-4 times. On 15.10.2016 as she was running fever and also vomiting, her mother took her to doctor who after examination found her pregnant. Based on this complaint, offence under Sections 376, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3(A), 4 of POSCO Act was registered against the accused persons vide FIR of Ex.P/8. During investigation, statements of the witnesses including the prosecutrix were recorded, spot maps were prepared; admission-discharge register of the school was seized vide Ex.P/12; the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and the seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical analysis. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under sections 376, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(A) & 4 of POSCO Act.

03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act against accused persons, who denied the charges and prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court on due appreciation has though rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the prosecutrix was a minor girl of 17 years on the date of incident but while considering Issue Nos. 2 & 3, despite there being clear and specific evidence of the prosecutrix against respondent No.1/accused regarding commission of rape upon her, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that version of the prosecutrix is duly