1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 132 of 2025 X Nil ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). 2 - Anil Mandavi, S/o Late Shri S.N. Mandavi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Durga Chowk, Block Colony, Ward No. 11, Police Station - Dantewada, District - South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pritam Singh, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 09/05/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the Judgment dated 06.11.2024 passed ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.05.09 17:02:17 +0530 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South Bastar Dantewada, in Sessions Trial No. 145/2024 whereby, the Respondent No.2- Anil Mandavi has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/ Prosecutrix submits that on the basis of false assurance of marriage, the Respondent No.2-Anil Mandavi has committed sexual intercourse with her from the year, 2014 upto year 2020, and, thereafter, from the year 2021 upto April 2024 and, has refused to marry with her. 3. Based upon the aforesaid allegation, the Respondent No.2 has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. 4. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that the Respondent No.2, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, took her in the month of March, 2014 to his friend’s house and has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. It is alleged further that her relation with the said Respondent was cordial, and in the month of March 2020, when she went to his house, where his mother has refused to perform marriage of him with her and, therefore, she stopped talking with him and, alleged further that in the month of December, 2021, the Respondent No.2 again came to her house and stated that because of the pressure of his mother, he stopped talking with her, but he wanted to live and marry with her and started talking with her and on the pretext of marriage, he again 3 gained her confidence and committed the alleged offence upto April 2024. It is allegd further that since he has made the alleged relations on the false plea of marriage, therefore, he is liable to be punished. 5. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW/3 and a bare perusal of her statement would show that the alleged relation of her with the said respondent was made continuously from the year 2014 upto 2020 and, thereafter also from the year 2021 upto 12th April 2024, and, it appears further from her cross-examination, particularly Paragraph 16, that infact, he never refused to marry with her, and, instead his mother has refused to marry of him with her. It appears further from Paragraph 17 of her testimony that the alleged relations were made with the consent of both of them. 6. It, thus, appears from a bare perusal of her statement that the alleged relations were made with the consent of the prosecutrix herself and despite knowing the fact that the marriage was not solemnized with her by the Respondent in the month of April, 2024, no report, as such, was lodged immediately, thereafter, and, instead the alleged written report (Ex.P/3) was lodged only on 21.05.2024. 7. In view of such circumstances coupled with the statement of the prosecutrix, it is evident that the said respondent has not given the false assurance of marriage to the prosecutrix and the Trial 4 Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has not committed any illegality in holding that she was a consenting party with regard to the alleged relations, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 8. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan