1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 95 of 2025 Judgment Reserved on 07.04.2025 Judgment Delivered on 08.4.2025 • ABC ...Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Chowki- C.S.E.B. Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. Vikash Kumar Kesharwani, S/o Late Purshottam Lal, aged about 26 Years, R/o Near Budhwari Bazaar Shulabh, Korba Korba, Tehsil and District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Heard on admission. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/victim under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS') arises out of the judgment dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Korba, District Korba, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.46/2024, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 herein of the charge under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.04.08 14:59:40 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the period between 01.04.2016 to 01.01.2024, respondent No.2, on the pretext of marriage, established physical relations with the appellant/victim repeatedly against her will. Further, case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2024, victim lodged a written report (Ex.P-7) stating therein that respondent No.2 forcibly took her to his house and on the pretext of marriage and against her will, established physical relations with her. It is alleged further that respondent No.2 is sexually exploiting her for the last eight years and whenever she asked him to marry, he refused. It is also alleged that on account of their physical relationship, she became pregnant twice and respondent No.2 administered her some medicine, which resulted in miscarriage. Meanwhile, on her insisting, respondent No.2 took her to Korba Court and got a marriage contract on a stamp paper worth Rs.50/- before the notary and told her that from today onwards, they are husband and wife. Subsequently, when she verified the said stamp paper, she came to know that it was not a valid one. After that, respondent No.2 took her to Swarvamangal temple, Korba on 23.07.2019 and put a garland on her. Thereafter, on 20.01.2023, with the consent of their family members, their engagement ceremony was got done and despite that, accused/respondent No.2 denied her marry and used to demand dowry. Thereafter, on the basis of written report (Ex.P-7), FIR (Ex.P-8) has been registered against the respondent No.2. 3. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-10. Consent letter (Ex.P-11) of victim was obtained and she was sent for medical examination where Dr. F.A. (PW-4) examined the victim and found no symptoms of abortion twice. He also found that there was no sign of 3 resistance on the body of the victim nor there was any sign of recent sexual intercourse and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-3. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. Accused/respondent No.2 abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 24 documents and Articles (A-1 & A-2) connecting the respondent No.2/accused to the crime in question. However, in his defence, respondent No.2/accused has examined none and not exhibited any document. 6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 herein of said charge leveled against him. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/victim would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is evidence available on record to show that accused/respondent No.2, from the very beginning, had no intention to marry the victim and on the false pretext of marriage, he established physical relations with the victim on many occasions and when she got pregnant, accused/respondent No.2 refused to marry her and administered her some medicine, which resulted in miscarriage and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, 4 therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Anurag Soni vs State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2019 SC 1857. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of accused/respondent No.2, would support the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/victim. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/victim as well as counsel for the State and perused the material available on record. 10. 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:- “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.” 11. Case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statement of victim (PW-7) who has stated that respondent No.2, on the pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her repeatedly against her will since 2016 and whenever she asked him to marry, he used to refuse. She has further stated that in the year, 2023, her engagement ceremony was performed with respondent No.2. She has also stated that firstly she got pregnant in the year 2016 and thereafter in December, 2023 and during that period, respondent No.2 continuously made physical relations with her and did not marry. She has also stated that respondent No.2 told his family 5 to return the wedding items as he will not marry her. However, in cross- examination, she admitted that after the incident of the year 2016, she did not inform about the incident to her family members nor lodge any report in any police station against the respondent No.2. She further admitted that since 2016, respondent No.2 has been maintaining physical relations with her and whenever, she used to go to meet accused/respondent No.2, her family members did not object her. Thus, a perusal of statement of victim (PW-7) would show that victim was a consenting party and was in relationship with respondent No.2 since 2016 and respondent No.2 did not establish physical relations with her forcibly or against her will nor threatened her in any manner. This apart, perusal of Marriage Agreement dated 25.03.2019 (Article A-2) would also show that on their own free will and mutual consent, they (victim and respondent No.2) solemnized marriage at Sarvamangal Temple, Korba which was reduced on a stamp paper and they accepted each other as husband and wife. Furthermore, Dr. F.A. (PW-4) who examined the victim did not find any symptoms of abortion twice and also did not notice any sign of resistance over the body of the victim nor any sign of recent sexual intercourse. 12. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence come to the conclusion that victim/appellant was in relationship with respondent No.2 since 2016 and he (respondent No.2) did not establish physical relations with her forcibly or against her will and as such, acquitted him of the said charge as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Having gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant and the principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and 6 circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgment, being distinguishable on facts, is of no help to the counsel for the appellant. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused /respondent No.2 herein of the said charge is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant/victim is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh