1 2025:CGHC:19829-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 147 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bagicha District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Harihar Yadav S/o Kunj Bihari Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Puranga, Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 01/05/2025 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 29/08/2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act), Jashpur (C.G.) in Special Case NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.05.02 10:34:14 +0530 2 No.16/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Atrocities Act’). 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 08/01/2016, a written report was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station, Bagicha of District Jashpur against the respondent, alleging inter alia, that on 25/12/2015, she came to her parental house at Puranga for celebrating ‘Christmas festival’ and on 29/12/2015, she has attended the marriage of one Vinod Tirkey at 7.00 p.m. and while she was returning from the wedding, she was stopped by the respondent and forcefully dragged her towards narrow culvert near the house of Alvis and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully and was threatened to kill, if she disclosed the alleged incident. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC in connection with Crime No.5/2016 and after recording the statement of the prosecutrix and others’ and that by completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District Jashpur against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court where based upon the materials available on record, the charge has been framed 3 against him for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (1), 506 of IPC and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, which 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 14 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents, 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 she was a consenting party with regard to offence committed on 29/12/2015 and accordingly, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence mentioned hereinabove and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 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 the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecutrix has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in acquitting him as such. 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. 4 8. The respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376 (1), 506 of IPC and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, on account of the incident occurred on 29/12/2015, when the prosecutrix was returning after attending the wedding of one Vinod Tirkey at her parental house at village Puranga, and was stopped by the respondent, and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that after the occurrence of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was examined medically by Dr. V. Bhakhala (PW-7), who in her report (Ex.P/14) has neither found any injury on her, nor she has given any specific opinion regarding forceful intercourse upon her. That apart, from perusal of the statement of Jodhan Yadav (PW-8), particularly paragraph 7, it appears that on account of the alleged incident, a meeting was convened at village Puranga on 04/01/2016, i.e. at the parental village of the prosecutrix, where the prosecutrix has stated specifically that she wanted to live with the respondent. He deposed further that the respondent and his father was, therefore, called, but they did not come and since they did not come, therefore, the alleged report was lodged by her before the concerned police station and that too on 08/01/2016, even without assigning any proper reasons. After considering the said materials placed on record, the trial Court has, therefore, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party with regard to alleged offence and the respondent has accordingly been, acquitted from the commission of alleged offence and, we, therefore, do not find any 5 infirmity in the same, 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 Kamde