Dismissed¶11

State of Chhattisgarh v. Kamlesh Chandra

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2026ACQA/161/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; ACQA No. 161 of 2018; acquittal appeal by State dismissed 09.01.2026; offences under Sections 450 and 376 IPC; rape of 60-year-old deaf and dumb woman; hostile victim (PW-5) denied assault through gestures; medical evidence (PW-6 Dr. M.J.) showed no recent intercourse or injuries; no FSL report on record; scope of interference in appeal against acquittal per Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440; benefit of doubt; acquittal upheld.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant/State; the acquittal of the accused/respondent stands, with no interference by this Court. ¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kamlesh Chandra — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant/State; the acquittal of the accused/respondent stands, with no interference by this Court.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 450 and 376 IPC, and whether the acquittal calls for interference by this Court in appeal.

¶6

Court's answer

The present case is based solely on the evidence of PW-5/victim, who turned hostile and, through gestures interpreted by her son, categorically denied the allegation of rape and did not support the prosecution case.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

PW-6 Dr. M.J., who medically examined the victim, found no sign of recent sexual intercourse and no injury on her person, either externally or internally.

¶10

Key takeaways

Since the victim/PW-5 herself turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, the learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, is justified in acquitting the accused/respondent of the said charges, which calls for no interference by this Court.ratio¶10
The acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent is dismissed.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal by the State (ACQA) against judgment dated 30.11.2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, in Sessions Case No. 229/2013, acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 450 and 376 IPC by extending the benefit of doubt. The case rested solely on the testimony of PW-5/victim, a 60-year-old deaf and dumb woman, who turned hostile and, through gestures, denied that the accused entered her house or committed any sexual assault. PW-6 doctor found no sign of recent sexual intercourse and no injury on the victim externally or internally; no FSL report was brought on record. Relying on Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, on the scope of interference in appeals against acquittal, the Bench held the trial Court's evaluation justified and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1327-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date: 2026.01.12 16:55:57 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

ACQA No. 161 of 2018

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

...Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Kamlesh Chandra, S/o Gangaprasad Chandra Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bargaon, Police Station Nawagarh, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

		... Respondent
For Appellant	: Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent	: Ms. Smita Mishra, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶14

09.01.2026

¶15

Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

¶16

This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Case No. 229/2013, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) by extending the benefit of doubt.

¶17

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.08.2013 at about 12:00 a.m., victim, a 60-year-old deaf and dumb woman, was sleeping in her house. It is alleged that the accused/respondent forcibly entered her house, gagged her mouth, removed her clothes, and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is further alleged that when the victim raised an alarm, the accused/respondent attempted to flee, and in the light of a burning fireplace, she identified him after removing the cloth from his face. Thereafter, on the next day, the victim allegedly narrated the incident to her family members through gestures and, while proceeding towards her house, she is stated to have identified the accused/respondent riding a motorcycle and pointed towards him. Subsequently, a written report (Ex.P-6) was lodged against the accused/respondent, pursuant to which, an FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against him.

¶19

During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Consent letter of the victim (Ex.P-8) was obtained and she was sent for medical examination, where Dr. M.J. (PW-6) examined her and did not notice any sign of recent sexual intercourse, nor did she find any injury on her person, either internally or externally and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-5. Vide Ex.P-7, clothes of the victim were seized. The seized articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination, however, no FSL report has been brought on record.

¶20

Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

¶21

¶22

The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charges leveled against him.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the accused/respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the PW-5/victim, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the accused/respondent from the commission of the alleged crime.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence available on record, has rightly acquitted the accused/respondent, which calls for no interference by this Court.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

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 Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

¶27

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶28

¶29

The present case is based solely on the evidence of PW-5/victim. A bare perusal of her testimony would show that she herself has turned hostile, as in her statement before the Court, through her son acting as an interpreter, she has categorically denied the allegation of rape and has not supported the prosecution case. She has stated, through gestures, that the accused/respondent neither entered her house nor committed any sexual assault upon her and on the contrary, she has stated that the person who came to her house had covered his face with a cloth and fled away when the chimney was lit. This apart, PW-6 Dr. M.J., who medically examined the victim, did not notice any sign of recent sexual intercourse nor did find any injury on her person either externally or internally. Since the victim/PW-5 herself turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, is justified in acquitting the accused/respondent of the said charges, which calls for no interference.

¶30

Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent herein is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Sd/Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶32

Akhilesh

State of Chhattisgarh v. Kamlesh Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Kamlesh Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohan Lal Nishad

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Shyamu @ Shyamsundar

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gaurava @ Golu Agrawal

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Yugraj Nayak

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Painta @ Radheshyam

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Abhijeet Das Gupta