20 Important Chhattisgarh High Court Judgments Of 2025

1. Victim Can't Be Compelled To Give Birth To Child Of Her Rapist: Chhattisgarh HC Allows Termination Of 24+ Weeks Old Foetus Of MinorCase Title: ABC (Minor) Through Natural Guardian XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 1The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday allowed the prayer of a minor rape victim for abortion of her 24 weeks 6 days old foetus and held that a victim/prosecutrix cannot be compelled to give birth to the child of her rapist.While emphasizing the right to bodily autonomy of the victim/petitioner, the Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed –“The victim of rape must be given that much of liberty and right to decide whether she should continue with the pregnancy or she should be permitted to terminate the pregnancy.”2. Additional Evidence Can Only Be Allowed In Exceptional Circumstances While Deciding Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Chhattisgarh HCCase Title: M/s Hira Carbonics Private Limited v. Kunwar Virendra Singh PatelCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 9The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey has held that additional evidence not forming part of the arbitral record can be allowed to be given only in exceptional circumstances while hearing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.It was held that “an application for setting aside the arbitral award will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator, however, if there are matters not containing such records and the relevant determination to the issues arising under section 34(2)(a), they may be brought to the notice of the Court by way of affidavits filed by both the parties' the cross-examination of the persons swearing in to the affidavits should not be allowed unless absolutely necessary as the truth will emerge on the reading of the affidavits filed by both the parties.”3.Second Wife Of Husband Can't Be Prosecuted For Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC: Chhattisgarh High CourtCase Title: Dr. Manju Sinha v. Smt. Pyari Dadsena & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 13The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that a person who is single and marries another whose marriage is substituting cannot be not liable under Section 494 IPC, but it is the person whose marriage is substituting who would be liable.Interpreting the provision of law, the Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held –“In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that this petitioner was already married by the time she married. A person who is single marrying another whose marriage is substituting is not liable under Section 494 IPC, but the person whose marriage is substituting would be liable. A bare perusal of the Section 494 of the IPC, it is crystal clear that the word used by the Legislature “whoever, having a husband or wife living” commits bigamy as provided therein, and in the later half to fix liability against the “such husband or wife”, expressing the intension of the Legislature to prosecute the erring husband/wife, as the case may be.”4. S. 377 IPC | 'Unnatural' Sex By Husband With Wife Without Her Consent Is Not An Offence: Chhattisgarh High CourtCase Title: Gorakhnath Sharma v. State of ChhattisgarhCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 15The Chhattisgarh High Court on Monday held that a husband cannot be prosecuted for commission of the offence of rape under Section 376 or unnatural sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for having any sexual intercourse, including every unnatural sex, with his major wife even without her consent.Holding 'consent' of wife in sexual intercourse/unnatural intercourse to be insignificant, the Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed –“Thus, it is quite vivid, that if the age of wife is not below age of 15 years then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with her wife cannot be termed as rape under the circumstances, as such absence of consent of wife for unnatural act loses its importance, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 376 and 377 of the IPC against the appellant is not made out.”5. 'Naxal Attacks Are Politically Driven, Threaten National Security': Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Conviction Of Four In 2014 Tahakwara Naxal AmbushCase Title: Kawasi Joga @ Pada & Ors. v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 19The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the order of conviction passed by a Special NIA Court against four persons, who were held guilty for their involvement in 2014's Tahakwara Naxal attack in which 15 security personnel were martyred and a civilian lost his life.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal termed naxal attacks to be threat to national security and observed –“Attacks/ambush by Naxalites on security forces are not just criminal acts but are part of a larger insurgency that threatens national security, law and order, and democratic institutions. These assaults are premeditated, highly...

20 Important Chhattisgarh High Court Judgments Of 2025

Saahas Arora

Tags