1 2025:CGHC:2756-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 74 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus Krishna Prasad @ Golu Dewangan S/o Motiram Aged About 27 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Bojha Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, Present Address Ghulmul, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : None, despite service of notice. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board. 16.01.2025 Per Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C”), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 18th April, 2017 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.01.17 16:35:57 +0530 2 and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) in Special Case No.22/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 506(B) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989’). 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix/victim, a grown-up lady, aged about 20 years, has lodged an FIR stating that in the month of April, 2016, when she had gone for the labour work of Road construction in her village G.E., the respondent-accused came in her contact and against her wish, took her in a nearby Hut and committed rape with her and also extended threat, if she shouts. Due to such incident, when the prosecutrix carried pregnancy of 06 months and the said fact came into the notice of others, and also the threat extended by the respondent-accused, a Meeting was convened in her village on 18.09.2016 and thereafter, the prosecutrix along with the village people and her father, had lodged the instant FIR, which has been registered at Police Station, Jashpur in connection with Crime No.202/2016, vide Ex. P-1. 3. Dr. Suchita Minj (PW-11) has physically examined the prosecutrix vide Ex. P-13 and found that there is an advanced stage of pregnancy. Dr. Manju Minj (PW-10), who is the Sonologist, had conducted Sonography of the victim and confirmed the fetus of about 31 weeks in her womb, as per her report Ex.P-11. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the respondent-accused has also been examined 3 and it was found that he is capable of committing sexual intercourse. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the matter was thereafter committed to the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Jashpur, who framed the charges against the respondent- accused under Sections 376(1), 506(B) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 and, the charges so framed were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused-respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents and Article “A”, mark-sheet of the victim. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondent-accused abjured his guilt and stated that he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the offence, and has not adduced any evidence in his defence. 5. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Special Judge reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and while giving benefit of suspicion, acquitted the respondent-accused from the commission of the above mentioned charges. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State would submit that the prosecutrix has categorically deposed that due to threat, she has not disclosed the incident to anyone. Though, she has informed the incident to her family members, but due to fear to defame in the 4 society, being a lady, the family and the prosecutrix decided not to lodge the FIR, and when the fetus has been developed and the said fact came to the notice then with the help of the village people, the incident came into light and an FIR was lodged, therefore, a true incident has been happened, however, the trial Court has wrongly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondent-accused from the commission of the above charges, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the respondent- accused. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State/appellant and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection. 9. Admittedly, the victim (PW-1), at the time of incident, a grown-up lady, aged about 20 years, has categorically stated that she along with other 20-22 female labours (Reja) and 12-15 male labours, are doing labour work from her village and they regularly had gone to the Road construction site and was returning in the evening along with them. She further deposed that in the month of April, 2016 (she could not remember the date of incident), on one day, in the said month, the respondent-accused, who is doing the work of Supervisor/Munshi of the Road site, forcefully caught her and took her nearby the bushes, situated at the site of the road and committed rape with her against her wish in the evening at about 6.00 PM. She further deposed that though she shouted for help, but at the time of incident no one was present there, therefore, nobody came to help her and after returning to home, 5 she disclosed the incident to her father and mother and, further corrected her version that as the respondent- accused extended threat to her, therefore, she disclosed the incident next day to her father and mother. The prosecutrix has lodged the FIR after more than 06 months when the fetus has been developed for about 24 weeks, as reported by Dr. Suchita Minj (PW-11) and a meeting in this regard was convened in the village, and she also admitted that in the meeting, the village people have asked her about the relation of the fetus then she disclosed the name of the respondent- accused and also disclosed the incident and thereafter, she lodged the FIR Ex.P-1. 10. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence of the prosecutrix and her father(PW-2), it appears that when in the meeting, a fine has been imposed upon the prosecutrix, at the instance of the village people, she has lodged the FIR and victim (PW-1) in her cross-examination at para 15 has categorically admits that only for the reason when the Panchas have asked her to lodge the report and sent to the Police Station, she has lodged the FIR. In such circumstances, the trial Court has drawn a conclusion that the incident might have been happened with the consent of the victim and benefit of suspicion has been extended to the respondent-accused. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the said finding of the trial Court is just and proper and there is no infirmity or illegality, warranting interference in the finding recorded by the trial Court. 11. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge 6 sunita