1 2025:CGHC:2706-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 57 of 2018 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station, Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Lalit Kumar Verma S/o Santosh Verma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Village Semhra, P.S. Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 16/01/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 07/10/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.08/ 2015, whereby, the CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.17 16:47:22 +0530 2 respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that a written report (Ex.P-2) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station - Khairagarh against the respondent, alleging inter-alia, that on 10/08/2014, she went to her maternal uncle’s house at village Semhra on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, where she came in contact with the respondent and after staying with her maternal uncle’s house for 2-3 days, she came back to her house at Amlipara (Khairagarh), where the respondent came on 21/08/2014 around 12 PM when she was alone at home and while alluring her on the pretext of marriage has committed sexual intercourse with her. Based upon the said report, an FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered on 16/03/2015 and after recording the statement of the prosecutrix and others’, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted its charge- sheet before the Court of Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, in connection with Crime No.76/2015 against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the learned Trial Court, who framed the charge against the respondent -Lalit Kumar Verma under Section 376 IPC and, the charge so framed was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 02 witnesses and exhibited 04 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 3 4) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent has not committed the alleged offence contrary to her wish and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the Trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix was not scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has supported the impugned judgment as passed by the trial Court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of written report (Ex.P-2) lodged by the prosecutrix, the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC was registered against the respondent vide Ex.P-3. It, however, appears from her testimony that the alleged report was not lodged by her and has only put her signature on it and, deposed further that she was not aware that what was written on it. Further of her testimony would show that both, i.e., prosecutrix and the respondent, are living like husband and wife and from their 4 wedlock, a child was born. She deposed further that the respondent has never made physical relation with her contrary to her wish. No evidence has, thus, been placed on record by the proseuction, so as to hold that the respondent has committed the alleged offence and therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 9) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Chandrakant