1 2025:CGHC:2190-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 152 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh,Through S.H.O. Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Dharamdas Mahant S/o Gulab Das Mahant, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kaya, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 14.01.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 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 28.01.2014 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) in Special Case No.51/2013, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.01.15 10:44:26 +0530 2 regard to the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1989’) and Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 20.07.2013, a written report was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station -Gharghoda, District Raigarh against the respondent- Dharamdas Mahant, alleging therein, that the respondent, who is a resident of village- Kaya, has come in her house when she was alone and committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. It is alleged further that when she asked him for marriage, he refused and threatened to kill her, if she lodged the report. On basis of the said complaint, a crime was registered by the Police Station- Gharghoda, District Raigarh against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC and upon production of the Caste Certificate, the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989 was also registered against him. During investigation, the statements of the prosecutrix and others’ were recorded and after completion of usual investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh with regard to the alleged offence as mentioned herein-above and, who in turn, has committed the matter to the learned Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Raigarh, where the charge has been framed against the respondent under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989 and, in alternatively under Sections 376 and 506 Part- II of IPC, which was denied by the respondent and claimed to be tried. 3 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and has exhibited 22 documents in order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix, who is major, was a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence and accordingly, acquitted the respondent from the commission of the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the Court below 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, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the alleged offence. 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 a written report was lodged by the prosecutrix on 20.07.2013 (Ex.P/1) before the Police Station- Gharghoda, wherein, it has been alleged that when she was alone at 4 home on 29.11.2012, the respondent- Dharamdas Mahant, entered into her house and while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse with her. It reveals further from the said report that on 17.07.2013, she requested him for marriage, but, he refused, owing to which, she was compelled to lodge the alleged report and, based upon which, FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered. It, however, reveals from her statement, who is 21 years old, that the alleged offence was committed firstly upon her on 29.11.2012, when she was alone at home by the respondent on the pretext of marriage. It reveals further from her testimony that he used to come in her house and repeatedly made physical relations with her, but, she never raised or objected for the alleged relations. The report of the alleged offence was, however, lodged by the prosecutrix after passing of the considerable period of about 09 months. What was stated by her that since she was threatened by him to kill, therefore, she could not have lodged the report earlier. But, close scrutiny of her statement, particularly, para 6 would show that she has lodged the alleged report on 20.07.2013 because he had refused to marry her on 17.07.2013, else she would not have lodged the alleged report. It, thus, appears that she was not threatened by him, as alleged by her. That apart, the alleged threat was neither disclosed to her mother nor the brother, so as to hold that because of the alleged threat, she would not have dared to lodge the report earlier. Therefore, the reasons as was assigned by the prosecutrix, cannot be held to be acceptable and rather appears to have been made when the respondent has refused to marry her on 17.07.2013. The conduct of 5 the prosecutrix, would thus, show that she was one of the consenting party and, the trial Court has, therefore, after considering the evidence, rightly arrived at a conclusion that she was a consenting party for the alleged offence and, the finding so recorded, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby affirmed. 9. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita