Dismissed¶48

State of Chhattisgarh v. Painta @ Radheshyam

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jan 2026ACQA/63/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses State's acquittal appeal (ACQA No. 63 of 2018) against acquittal under Section 376(1) IPC; prosecutrix aged about 21 years held consenting; DNA report (Ex. P/21) establishes accused as biological father of girl child born 24.01.2016; F.I.R. lodged 02.03.2016 after delay; principles from Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (SC, 12.02.2024) on appeals from acquittal applied; trial Court's view plausible, no patent illegality or perversity; no interference; acquittal upheld.

What did the court decide?

None to the State/appellant; the acquittal of the respondent stands upheld. ¶48

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Painta @ Radheshyam — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the State/appellant; the acquittal of the respondent stands upheld.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court's acquittal of the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 376(1) IPC is liable to be set aside in this acquittal appeal preferred by the State.

¶20

Court's answer

From the DNA report the accused/respondent is the biological father of the girl child of the prosecutrix, but the prosecutrix is aged about 21 years and is a consenting party to the act of the accused/respondent.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

This Court endorses the trial Court's finding that the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondent.

¶37

Key takeaways

The view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible and possible view; in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.ratio¶47
The acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQA No. 63 of 2018, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 12/01/2026, Per Rajani Dubey, J. (bench also comprising Radhakishan Agarwal, J.). State's acquittal appeal against the judgment dated 28.04.2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jashpur, acquitting the respondent Painta @ Radheshyam of the charge under Section 376(1) IPC — dismissed. The prosecutrix (PW-07) gave birth to a girl child on 24.01.2016; the DNA Test Report (Ex. P/21) showed the accused to be the biological father; the F.I.R. was lodged on 02.03.2016, about two months after the birth. In cross-examination the prosecutrix admitted a love affair and that physical relations were established with her own consent, and that the respondent had not assured marriage; the Court recorded that the prosecutrix, aged about 21 years, was a consenting party to the act. Holding the trial Court's view plausible and possible, and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, and applying the principles for deciding an appeal from acquittal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162 of 2011, decided 12.02.2024), the Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU

¶3

2026:CGHC:1538-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

ACQA No. 63 of 2018

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station-Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Painta @ Radheshyam S/o Shri Vidhyadhar Ram, aged about 22 years, R/o Guljhariya, Police Station Duldula, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For State/Appellant : Ms. M. Asha, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agarwal, J.

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per, Rajani Dubey, J.

¶17

12/01/2026

¶18

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.) in case of “State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Painta @ Radheshyam”,

¶19

¶20

whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 (1) of IPC. Hence, this appeal.

¶21

Brief facts of the case as adumbrated are that the prosecutrix/victim (PW-07) has studied till Class X^th and she was residing with her maternal grandmother at Chongo Basti, Bhagalpur. The accused/respondent viz. Painta @ Radheshaym was residing as a tenant in uncle’s house of the prosecutrix in the year 2013 and whenever the prosecutrix used to go to the house of her uncle, the accused/respondent allured her by saying that he liked her, and that he would elope her and keep her as his wife. In October 2013, after having her meal, when the prosecutrix was sleeping during the night, the accused/respondent called her and asked her to come out and when she refused to do so, the accused/respondent started throwing pebbles on the door of the house, then the prosecutrix came out and the respondent on the pretext of marriage took the prosecutrix to his room and without her consent he committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her. Thereafter, the accused/respondent used to have sexual intercourse with her once a week. The prosecutrix went to attend the marriage ceremony of her uncle’s daughter Chanda at village Pandripani, where the accused/respondent also came and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, as such in May, 2015, the prosecutrix got pregnant and after two months she informed the same to the accused/respondent, wherein the accused told her that he will keep her as his wife. On 24.01.2016, the prosecutrix gave birth to one girl child and it was informed to the accused/respondent, but the accused/respondent did not come and then the family members of the prosecutrix conducted a social meeting wherein, the

¶22

¶23

accused/respondent did not accept the child and refused from marrying the prosecutrix/victim. As such, the prosecutrix reported the incident to the concerned Police Station-Jashpur and the matter was taken up for investigation.

¶24

After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the offence under Section 376 (1) of IPC against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/respondent.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State/respondent submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and incorrect and is liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has committed an error in deciding the facts in the case and law points. The learned trial Court passed the order of acquittal resulting in miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-07) is natural and truthful and she has given the true version of the occurrence. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-07) who has categorically stated that the accused/respondent committed rape with her on many occasions in the pretext of marriage and she has also a girl child from the accused/respondent and when the prosecutrix asked the accused to marry, he refused her from the same. It is pertinent to mention from the DNA Test Report vide Ex. P/21 that the accused/respondent viz. Painta @ Radheshyam is the biological father

¶26

¶27

& the prosecutrix is the biological mother of the girl child and the same has not been challenged by the accused/respondent and thus, it is apparent & evident that the accused/respondent has committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Thus, the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-07) clearly illustrates the act of accused/respondent, but the learned trial Court failed to take into consideration of the same. Learned trial Court has ignored the principles of law laid down gby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such type of offences under the said Act. Learned trial Court ought to have considered this fact that there is cogent and reliable evidence on record to prove the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-07) & DNA Test Report Ex. P/21 is without any blemish, which clearly establishes the case of the prosecution that the accused/respondent was wrongly acquitted. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside.

¶28

Per contra , learned counsel for accused/respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court upon due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence rightly acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charge levelled against him and as such, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused/respondent under Sections 376 (1) of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary

¶31

¶32

evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent under Section 376 (1) of IPC.

¶33

PW-01, grandmother of the prosecutrix stated that when she questioned the prosecutrix about her noticeably bulging stomach, which she suspected of pregnancy, the prosecutrix disclosed that she was, in fact, five to six months pregnant by the accused/respondent. Thereafter, the prosecutrix gave birth to a girl child on 26^th of January. In her cross-examination, she admitted this suggestion of the defence that the prosecutrix never disclosed to her about her relationship with the accused prior to her pregnancy. PW-04, mother of the prosecutrix supported the statement of her mother PW-01 and further stated that medical examination was conducted of her daughter/prosecutrix after giving birth to a girl child.

¶34

PW-07, prosecutrix stated that the accused used to call her for meeting and on the date of the incident, she went to village Pandripani to attend marriage ceremony of her uncle’s daughter, where the accused/respondent was also present and he committed sexual intercourse with her in an isolated place, from which she got pregnant and on 24.01.2016, the prosecutrix gave birth to a girl child and it was informed to the accused/respondent, but the accused/respondent did not come and then the family members of the prosecutrix conducted a social meeting wherein, the accused/respondent did not accept the child and refused from marrying the prosecutrix/victim. Then, she filed a written complaint vide Ex. P/11 before the police station, Jashpur and F.I.R. was registered vide Ex. P/12, she gave her consent letter for her medical examination vide Ex. P/13, spot map was prepared by the

¶35

¶36

police vide Ex. P/14 and she also gave consent for DNA test vide Ex. P/15 and identification form is Article B & C wherein she admitted her signature on A to A part. In para 15 of her cross-examination she admitted this fact that the respondent had not given her assurance for performing marriage with her. She further admitted that there is love affair between them, therefore, they established physical relation with her own consent. In para 19 of her cross-examination, she admitted this fact that she did not disclose about her pregnancy to the accused, further stated that after giving birth to a girl child, she disclosed the said fact to the accused.

¶37

It is clear from the DNA report of the accused/respondent that he is the biological father of the girl child of the prosecutrix, but it is clear that the prosecutrix is aged about 21 years and she is a consenting party to the act of the accused/respondent. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and also finds that the prosecutrix is a consenting party to the act of the accused/respondent. It is further clear that the F.I.R. was lodged by the prosecutrix on 02.03.2016 i.e., after two months of birth of her girl child. Learned trial Court rightly finds that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondent.

¶38

The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 ) in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka , has held in para 36 as under:-

¶39

“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:-

¶40

¶41

“(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;

¶42

(ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

¶43

(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;

¶44

(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;

¶45

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

¶46

(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.”

¶47

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶48

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶49

Sd/- Sd/-

¶50

(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agarwal) JUDGE JUDGE

¶51

U.K. Raju

State of Chhattisgarh v. Painta @ Radheshyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Painta @ Radheshyam

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 Yugraj Nayak

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kamlesh Chandra

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohan Lal Nishad

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Abhijeet Das Gupta

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Khatbun Nisha

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Jaisingh Bariha