1 2025:CGHC:12295-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 267 of 2024 1 - XYZ ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kotadol, District M.C.B. (C.G.). 2 - Ravichand Porte, S/o Mangal Singh Porte, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Ghanora, Badkatola, Police Station- Marwahi, District- G.P.M. (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Binu Sharma, Advocate. For State/respondent No.1 : Shri Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate along with Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 12/03/2025 Heard on admission. 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 12/03/2024 passed NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.12 18:54:44 +0530 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C.), Manendragarh, District- Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. No.74/2022, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 24/07/2022, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station Kotadol of District Koriya, alleging inter alia, that the respondent, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, called her in his house on 01/07/2019 at 11:00 P.M. and committed sexual intercourse with her, and has repeated the same thing on the pretext of alleged assurance. It is alleged further that he has committed the alleged offence upto April 2021 and threatened to kill, if she would not come and ultimately he made the physical relation on 29/04/2021 and has refused to marry with her. Based upon the alleged report (Ex.P/1), an FIR (Ex.P/2) was lodged on the same day against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was examined medically by Dr. Abhaya Gupta (PW-6) and has submitted her report vide Ex.P/9, while opining that she is habitual in sexual intercourse and, undergarments of the prosecutrix as well as the respondent, which were recovered and sent for chemical examination, where no human sperm was found in the FSL Report (Ex.P/17) and, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and after recording the statement of others, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janakpur of District- 3 Koriya and thereafter, the matter was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C.) Manendragarh, District- Koriya for its trial, where the charges were framed against the respondent under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC and he denied the same and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and has exhibited 18 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence and, the trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix along with her report (Ex.P/1) and (Ex.P/2), arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted form the commission of the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/prosecutrix submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution and the report lodged by her, have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime as such. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, which has been registered on the basis of the written report (Ex.P/1) lodged by the prosecutrix on 4 24/07/2022. It appears from a bare perusal of her report (Ex.P/1) that on 01/07/2019, she was called by the respondent at 11:00 P.M. and has committed sexual intercourse with her and has repeatedly committed the same thing while alluring her on the pretext of marriage. It appears further that the alleged relation was made continuously with her up to April, 2021 while alluring on the said pretext, but has refused to marry with her on 29/04/2021. It, however, appears from her (PW-1) Court’s statement, that even prior to the said fateful day, i.e. 01/07/2019, the respondent had come to her house and has committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, he always used to call her in his house and repeatedly committed the same thing. It was deposed further that she was threatened by him and during the course of commission of the alleged offence, he pressed her mouth with cloth, so that, she could not shout, and used to threaten her to kill, if she disclosed the alleged incident to anyone else. The alleged fact, as was deposed by her, was, however, not revealed from her report (Ex.P/1) lodged on 24/07/2022. Besides, according to the FSL report (Ex.P-17), it appears that no human sperm was found on the undergarments seized from the prosecutrix as well as of the respondent. Her statement is, therefore, not found to be corroborated by any conclusive piece of evidence, like FSL report. Since her statement is found to be deviated from her report as well as from her Court’s statement, it is, therefore, difficult to accept the alleged allegations leveled by her against the respondent. 6. Besides, it was revealed from her report lodged on 24/07/2022 5 that she was aware that the respondent has refused to marry with her on 29/04/2021, but, no report was, however, lodged immediately thereafter. That apart, it reveals further from her testimony, particularly paragraph 8, that a meeting was convened prior to that refusal, i.e. February, 2020 and another meeting was also convened subsequent to that, i.e. on 15th-16th July, 2022. In view of her evidence, and particularly the refusal as was made by the respondent on 29/04/2021, it was, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecurtrix to lodge the report immediately thereafter, but she has failed to lodge as such and no plausible explanation to this effect has been offered. Even if it is presumed that the respondent has committed sexual intercourse with her, then also, it appears to have been made with her consent. 7. In view of the aforesaid background, 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. 8. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Kamde