Victim's acquittal appeal against accused acquitted under Sections 450 and 376(2)(n) IPC for relations allegedly on false promise of marriage. Evidence showed a consensual relationship and voluntary travel. Following Supreme Court principles on reversing acquittals, the High Court found the trial court's view plausible and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2026:CGHC:13391-DB
Digitally signed by AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date: 2026.03.23 15:01:40 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NAFR
ACQA No. 120 of 2024
versus
... Respondents
| For Appellant | : Mr. Anupam Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent No.1 | : None. |
| For Respondent No.2/State | : Mr. Narayan Prasad, Panel Lawyer. |
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
20.03.2026
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
2
3
4
accused returned to Bina, U.P., where his father was working, and from there, he would come occasionally and establish physical relations with her. According to her, when respondent No.1 later stopped visiting, she herself went to Bina, U.P. to meet him, where his mother objected to their marriage and turned her out of the house. Thereafter, she and the accused boarded a train for Tirupur, but on receiving a call from family members, they returned to Chhattisgarh. She further stated that when she again asked respondent No.1 to marry her, he refused, whereupon she lodged the written complaint (Ex.P-1). In cross-examination, she admitted that from 2019 till December 2022, she had not disclosed the alleged relationship to her family or society. She further admitted that the accused was her relative and was related to her as her maternal aunt ( mausi ) and that she was aware of this relationship during the entire period. She also admitted that she used to send messages and obscene photographs to the accused through Instagram and that both of them liked each other and intended to marry. She also admitted that she had gone to Delhi on her own free will to meet the accused and that during the entire period, she did not make any complaint against him to anyone.
5
relationship. These circumstances do not support the allegation of forcible acts against the accused/respondent No.1. The learned trial Court, after elaborate discussion and proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 of the charges by extending the benefit of doubt.
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-
"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
6
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra) , the view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal ) Judge Judge
Akhilesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused of charges under Sections 450 and 376(2)(n) IPC on benefit of doubt was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Whether physical relations established on a promise of marriage amounted to forcible acts where the victim was a consenting party.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of KarnatakaRelied on¶11
Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011
2 provisions across 1 enactments
XYZ
Kanhaiya Kenwat
State of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
