1 2025:CGHC:48205-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 239 of 2024 A B C (Victim) ... Appellant versus Jeevan Lakra S/o Sukhdeo Lakra Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sahanpur P.S. Lundra District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent : None Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 19.09.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the legality and propriety of the Judgment dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.22/2022, whereby the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (n) of IPC. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.09.19 17:06:54 +0530 2 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the respondent while alluring the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage has committed sexual intercourse with her, but later on refused to marry, which compelled her for lodging the written report (Ex.P/1) on 1.10.2021 and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against him and was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. 3. From perusal of the evidence led by the prosecutrix, it appears that she came in contact with the respondent in May, 2019, and met him for the first time at Ambikapur, who, thereafter, took her to there in his friend’s house for two days and, thereafter took her to his house at village Sahanpur where they stayed for 2 to 3 days and during this period, he committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. It appears further from her testimony that the alleged act was done by him for the period of 2 years, but when he did not marry with her, she therefore, lodged a written report before the women Police Station at Ambikapur, where he was called and, from there, he took her to his house while assuring to marry. It appears further from her testimony that when he did not marry with her, a meeting was convened in the village, where he was ready to keep her as his wife, but despite of her several efforts, he did not marry with her. Perusal of her testimony would, thus, show that the alleged relation of her was made with him continuously for the period of more than two and half years, but the report (Ex.P/1) was lodged only on 1.10.2021 even without explaining any plausible reasons for it. 3 4. It is to be seen further that prior to lodging of the alleged report (Ex.P/1), a consent letter (Ex.D/3) was written by her on 06.08.2020 in presence of her parents and other of the villagers and, a bare perusal of it would show that she on her own wanted to live with the respondent and, thereafter, she lived with him upto 31.09.2020 as his wife and, it appears further that despite living separately from him as such, no report was lodged by her immediately thereafter for the reasons best known to her. 5. Pertinently to be noted here further that even prior to lodging the report on 01.10.2021, i.e., delay of more than two and half year, an application (Ex.D/2) enumerated under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was made by her before the Family Court at Ambikapur on 05.07.2021, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Act of the prosecutrix, thus, appears to be one of the consenting party with regard to the alleged long relations with him. The trial court, after taking note of these materials, has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Arpan