1 2025:CGHC:19800-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 101 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gaindatola, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Ramkumar Marar (Patel) S/o Bisruram Marar Aged About 32 Years R/o- Village Bagdwar, Police Station Gaindatola, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Smt. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Shri Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 01.05.2025 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 25.07.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon (CG) in Sessions Trial SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.05.02 10:38:22 +0530 2 No.33/2016, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 24.01.2016, the prosecutrix lodged a report before the Police Station, Gaindatola, District Rajnandgaon, alleging therein, that when she was returning from her agricultural field, the accused came and while caught hold of her hand, stopped her and asked for sexual intercourse and when it was denied by her, he forcefully dragged her nearby tree and committed forcefully sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged further that when the alleged act was being done, her husband came there and upon seeing him, the respondent tendered his apology while folded his hands. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered in connection with Crime No.01/2016 against the respondent for the offence mentioned herein-above and after recording the statement of her and others’ and, after completion of due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon for the offence mentioned herein-above and the matter was thereafter, committed to the trial Court, where the charge has been framed against the respondent under Section 376 of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, 3 particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and by considering the statement of Dr. Ekta Deniel (PW-16) and her report (Ex.P-18), arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix, was a consenting party with regard to the incident occurred on 24.01.2016 and the respondent has accordingly been, acquitted 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 trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal 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 account of the alleged incident occurred on 24.01.2016 around 11.30 am, a report was lodged by the prosecutrix on the same day at 19.50 hrs. after consulting with her family members and based upon the alleged complaint, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence 4 punishable under Section 376 of IPC in connection with Crime No.1/2016. In order to establish the allegations that the respondent has committed the alleged forceful sexual intercourse, the prosecutrix, who was 28 years and 9 months old having three children, was examined as PW-1. According to her statement, it appears that on the fateful day, the respondent has committed the sexual intercourse with her forcefully and when her husband came, he tendered his apology and she was slapped by her husband. It is deposed further by her that when the alleged act was being done by the respondent, she has shouted and informed the said fact when her statement was recorded by Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Ex. D-1, but unable to state why the said fact was not mentioned therein. 9. Although, it was stated by the prosecutrix that the alleged act was done by the respondent forcefully, but from perusal of her medical examination conducted by Dr. Ekta Deniel (PW-16), vis-a-vis, her report (Ex.P-18), it appears that neither any external injury nor any symptom of forceful sexual intercourse was found. It is to be seen further that when she was being examined by the said Dr. Ekta Deniel, certain questions were put to her, where she has replied to one of the question that at the time of commission of the alleged crime, she has not made any kind of struggle or cried. In view thereof, it is difficult to hold that the alleged act was done by the respondent contrary to her wish and, after noticing the aforesaid materials, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in arriving at a conclusion that she was a consenting party for the commission of the alleged offence occurred on 24.01.2016 around 11.30 am, while acquitting him from the 5 alleged offence, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita