##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14188-DB Digitally signed by AKHILESH NAFR

AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date:

2026.03.25

17:04:34 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No. 378 of 2025

• XYZ ...Appellant/Victim

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Bemetara, Distt. - Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

2. Bhanu Pratap Sahu, S/o Shri Anjor Singh Sahu, aged about 36 Years, R/o Shyampurkanpa, P.S. - Thankhamhariya, Distt. -

Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

25.03.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

Heard on admission.

1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/Victim arises out of the

judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bemetara, C.G., in Sessions Trial (FTC) No.27/2024,

2

whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 294 and 506 Part II of

Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.04.2024, victim, aged

about 30 years, lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Thankhamhariya alleging that the accused/respondent No.2 had been repeatedly establishing physical relations with her for about eight years against her will by extending threats. According to her, the first incident occurred when she was going to work in the accused’s field, where he allegedly committed rape upon her near a cremation ground, and thereafter continued such acts at different places by threatening her to life. She further alleged that in March 2024, accused/respondent No.2 again committed rape upon her in the early morning. Due to fear, she did not disclose the incidents for a long time and finally informed her husband on 25.04.2024. On the basis of the said written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered

against the accused/respondent No.2.

3. During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent of the

victim, she was sent for medical examination. PW-4 Dr. P.S. examined her and did not find any external or internal injuries on her person and gave MLC report vide Ex.P-8. Vaginal slides and undergarment of victim were seized vide Exs.P-4 & P-20 respectively. Undergarment of the accused was also seized vide Ex.P-21. All the seized articles were sent to the FSL for chemical

3

examination and the FSL report (Ex.P-25) has been brought on

record.

4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing

investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent No.2 before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondent No.2

abjured the 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/respondent No.2 of charge leveled against him.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Victim submits that the learned

trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 by recording perverse findings. It is further submitted that there is evidence on record, particularly the testimony of PW-1 (victim), to establish that the accused/respondent No.2 forcibly established physical relations with her on several occasions and also threatened her to life. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from

perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State supports the

contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/victim.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

4

9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs.

State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in