1 2025:CGHC:23814-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.264 of 2025 1 - XYZ Nil ... Appellant/Complainant versus 1 - Dileshwar Ravi S/o Devdhari Ram Suryavanshi Aged About 43 Years R/o Kedarpur, Police Station- Premnagar, (Wrongly Mentioned As Premanagar), District- Surajpur (C.G.) (Accused) 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Patna, District- Koriya (C.G.) (Prosecution) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Shri Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 13/06/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/prosecutrix under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Baikunthpur, District Koria (CG) in Sessions Trial No.74/2024, whereby, the respondent No.1-Dileshwar Ravi has been SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 323 of IPC. 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that an undated written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station Patna, District Koria, wherein it has been alleged that on 10.06.2021, the respondent No.1 came to her village and on the pretext of marriage, has committed forceful sexual intercourse with her from the said date upto 26.12.2023. An FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered, based upon the alleged report, against the respondent at Police Station Patna, District Korea, in connection with Crime No.170/2024 on 03.07.2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 323 of IPC. 3) In order to establish the aforesaid allegations as levelled by the prosecutrix in her said written report (Ex.P-1) that on 10.06.2021, the said respondent has committed the alleged offence of forceful sexual intercourse, but she has failed to establish the same, as a bare perusal of her (PW-1) testimony, who was a divorcee and aged about 37 years old, would show that she had rather gone to his house on her own wish and started living with him as husband and wife. Further of her testimony would reveal the fact that she was neither assaulted by the respondent, nor any report to this effect was lodged by her. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence of the prosecutrix, has, thus, rightly held that the prosecutrix was a consenting party 3 and no offence as such was committed by the said respondent, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 5) The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane