News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 149 | 2026:CGHC:5220

January 30, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld the acquittal of a Raipur man on charges of gang rape and offences under the SC/ST Act, while modifying his jail sentence in connection with charges of assault and criminal intimidation.

In a detailed judgment delivered on January 30, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad partly allowed the appeal filed by Maheshwar Nishad alias Natwar and dismissed the victim’s appeal challenging his acquittal on more serious charges.

The case stemmed from an incident on June 13, 2017, near Sheetla Talab in Raipur district. The prosecution alleged that the woman, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, had gone near the pond in the evening when the accused caught hold of her, assaulted her, and committed sexual intercourse against her will. An FIR was registered, and the case was tried before the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In November 2019, the trial court acquitted the accused of gang rape under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. However, he was convicted under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage modesty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 Part II (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment along with other concurrent sentences.

Both sides approached the High Court. The accused sought acquittal from all charges or reduction of sentence, while the victim challenged the acquittal on the rape and SC/ST Act counts.

After reappreciating the evidence, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquittal on the gang rape charge. The Bench noted that the prosecutrix admitted in cross-examination that on the day of the incident she had gone to the police station and reported only molestation and assault, without mentioning rape. Her father, brother, and aunt also acknowledged that initially she spoke only of assault and chest pain.

Medical and forensic evidence further weakened the rape allegation. Doctors who examined her found no injuries on her private parts and were unable to give a definite opinion about recent sexual intercourse. The Forensic Science Laboratory report did not detect semen or spermatozoa on the seized articles. The court also took into account that the alleged incident occurred around 5 pm at a public pond near a temple, an electricity sub-station, and a factory where workers were present.

On this cumulative assessment, the Bench held that the trial court had taken a plausible and reasonable view in acquitting the accused of gang rape. It observed that an appellate court should interfere with an acquittal only when the findings are perverse or based on a clear misreading of evidence, which was not the case here.

The High Court also rejected the victim’s contention that the offence attracted Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It held that there was no evidence to show that the alleged act was committed on account of the victim’s caste or that there was any caste-based insult or motive.

At the same time, the court found sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction under Sections 354, 323 and 506 Part II of the IPC. The prosecutrix’s account of assault and threats was found to be credible and was supported by family members and medical findings, including chest pain and a small pleural collection in the left lung membrane.

However, considering that the accused had no prior criminal record, had faced trial since 2017, and had already undergone 855 days in custody, the court reduced his jail sentence to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court was left intact.

As a result, the criminal appeal filed by the accused was partly allowed to the extent of sentence reduction, while the victim’s appeal against acquittal on the rape and SC/ST Act charges was dismissed.

Case Reference : CRA No. 1765 of 2019, Maheshwar Nishad @ Natwar vs State of Chhattisgarh – For Appellant: Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate; For State: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate; and ACQA No. 10 of 2020, DEF vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another – For Appellant: Ms. Shalini Kashyap, Advocate; For State/Respondent No.1: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate; For Respondent No.2: Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate.