Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sunil Yadav @ Golu on 11 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:7566-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 638 of 2022
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Patna, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
Sunil Yadav @ Golu S/o Shyamlal Yadav Aged About 21 Years Resident
of Village Kudeli Ahirapara, P.S. Patna District Koriya Chhattisgarh,
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.02.2026
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), the State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC) / Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date:
2026.02.11 18:35:21 +0530 2 Special Judge (Under POCSO Act, 2012), Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (Under POCSO Act) No. 19 of 2020, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(3), 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) & Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Learned Government Advocate submits that the defects pointed out by the Registry have already been cured. He further submits that vide memo of submission dated 19.01.2026, the State has filed the relevant exhibited documents, which are taken on record. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, as reflected in FIR (Ex.P/3) lodged by the victim (PW-3), is that on 14.11.2020, she was alone at her house and was sitting in the farmyard situated behind her residence. At about 4:00 p.m., the accused, who is her neighbour, approached her and started dragging her by holding her hand. She protested, asked him to leave, and raised alarm, but no one came to her rescue. The accused forcibly dragged her from the farmyard into a room, closed the door, and after removing both her clothes and his own, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When she stated that she would inform her mother about the incident, the accused threatened her with dire consequences.
It is further alleged that due to the said act, she started bleeding and experienced abdominal pain. She further stated that after the accused left, her brother arrived, but out of hesitation, she did not disclose the incident to him. Subsequently, when her sister returned home, she 3 narrated the incident to her, who then informed their brother. Her mother and brother were at another village at the relevant time and returned on 15.11.2021 at about 11:00 p.m., to whom she narrated the entire incident. Thereafter, upon consultation, the matter was reported on 16.11.2021.
4. Based on the said report, the jurisdictional police registered an FIR under Sections 450, 376, and 506 Part-II of the IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The investigation was thereafter undertaken, during which the victim was medically examined, the spot map was prepared, and statements of witnesses were recorded. Other procedural steps of investigation, including seizure of relevant articles and sending samples for forensic examination, were also carried out. During the course of investigation, the respondent/accused was arrested and, upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent jurisdictional Magistrate. Subsequently, the trial commenced.
5. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges levelled against him by extending the benefit of doubt.
6. Learned State counsel submitted that, as per the prosecution case, the victim (PW-3) was approximately 13 years of age at the time of the incident. The admission and discharge register (Ex.P/14C) of Class-I records her date of birth as 09.01.2008, which indicates that she was a minor aged about 13 years at the relevant time. Further, an 4 ossification test was conducted, and as per the radiologist's report (Ex.P/15), her age was assessed to be between 14 to 15 years. The said report was duly proved by Dr. Jyoti Gupta (PW-7). Despite this evidence, the learned trial Court relied upon the statements of the victim and her mother and held that the prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a minor. However, the record clearly demonstrates that the victim was below 16 years of age. Further, the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, as well as her deposition before the learned trial Court, categorically establish that she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused/respondent. The FSL report (Ex.P/28) also supports the prosecution case. Therefore, it is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and not supported by the evidence available on record.
7. Learned State counsel further submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law that conviction in cases of rape can be based solely upon the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is trustworthy and inspires confidence. In the present case, the testimony of the victim is cogent, consistent, and reliable. There was no justifiable reason for the learned trial Court to discard her testimony. Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is unjustified, improper, and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
8. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned State counsel and upon careful scrutiny of the material 5 available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has placed substantial and prima facie credible evidence demonstrating that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, which stands supported by documentary school records as well as medical evidence in the form of the ossification test duly proved by the prosecution witness. Further, the victim has consistently and unequivocally narrated the incident of forceful sexual intercourse in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC and in her deposition before the learned trial Court. The said testimony, at this stage, appears natural, cogent, and confidence-inspiring and is duly corroborated by the FSL report. The learned trial Court, while recording acquittal, appears to have ignored material evidence and well-settled legal principles governing appreciation of testimony of a victim, particularly in cases involving sexual assault upon a minor. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court, therefore, prima facie suffer from serious infirmities and warrant thorough re-appreciation by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the present case discloses strong and substantial grounds for interference and is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Hence, the application filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
9. Office is directed to register the case under the head of "Acquittal Appeal".
10. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed off accordingly.
11. The acquittal appeal is admitted.
6
12. Let a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- be issued against the respondent/accused for securing his presence before this Court on 06.04.2026.
13. The records of the learned trial Court have already been received and the paper-book has been prepared.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan