1 2025:CGHC:38691-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 118 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kodekhurse, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) ...Appellant versus Saradhu Ram S/o Samsai Dugga Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Hamatvahi, Police Station Badgaon, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : None, though served Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 05.08.2025 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 13.07.2017, passed by the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.08.06 10:28:26 +0530 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar, Kanker (CG) in Sessions Trial No.28/2016, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506-Part II of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix, aged about 19 years, before the Police Station, Kodekhurse of District North Bastar, Kanker, alleging therein, that the respondent- Saradhu Ram Dugga met her in the Badgaon Market in the month of November, 2015, saying that he is unmarried and wanted to marry her and, while alluring her as such, took her to Bharri Jangle and committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, also he committed the alleged sexual intercourse with her, but, later on, she came to know that he is a married person, having three children and, it was alleged further that she was threatened by him to kill, if she disclosed the incident to anyone else. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1, but, a bare perusal of her statement would show that nothing was done by the respondent with her, nor her mother (PW- 3) and brothers (PW-2 and PW-8), have supported the alleged of her version and, while taking note of their testimonies, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 3 4. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita