1 2025:CGHC:28477-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 144 of 2018 Suman Thakur D/o Shri Nandkumar Singh Thakur Aged About 25 Years R/o Kirari Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, 2 - Vishnu Kumar Yadav S/o Shyam Sunder Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bodsara, Chowki Naila, Police Station Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant :None For State/Respondent No.1 :Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 :Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate ACQA No. 201 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus Vishnu Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bodsara, Chowki Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.06.28 11:32:20 +0530 2 For Appellant/State :Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent :None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 27.06.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 29.06.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (CG) in Sessions Trial No.129/2014, whereby, the respondent-Vishnu Kumar Yadav has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 09.05.2014, a written report (Ex.P-6) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station, Janjgir, alleging inter alia, that one year prior to lodging of the report, the respondent while assuring to solemnize marriage with her, committed sexual intercourse with her and based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against him in connection with Crime No.238/2014 under Sections 493 and 376 of IPC and after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir against the respondent with regard to the alleged offence and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge has been 3 framed under Section 376 of IPC, which was denied by the respondent and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the alleged act was done by the respondent with the consent of the prosecutrix and, accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeals have been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State in Acquittal Appeal No. 201/2018 submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, as the evidence of 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 in Acquittal Appeal No.144/2018 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. 4 8. The respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred, one year prior to the lodging of the report dated 09.05.2014 (Annexure P-6). According to the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix, the respondent on the pretext of marriage has committed the alleged sexual intercourse continuously with her, owing to which, she became pregnant and he thereafter, refused to marry her. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-2, has, however, stated in her cross-examination that she has never lodged any report against the respondent prior to his marriage and deposed further that on her own wish, she used to go to the Lodge along with him and stated further that if the marriage of the respondent would not have been solemnized, she would not have lodged the report. It is, thus, apparent that the prosecutrix, who was 23 years old, was a consenting party with regard to the alleged incident and, the trial Court has, therefore, not erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in these appeals. 9. Both these appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita