1 2025:CGHC:30536-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.247 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Aamabeda, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG) ... Appellant versus Lakhan Lal Salam S/o Chaitram Salam Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Deogaon, Police Station Aamabeda, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : None DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 04/07/2025 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 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.63/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. 2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 18.01.2016, a written report (Ex.P-7) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 Police Station-Aamabeda, District Kanker, alleging, inter alia, that the respondent, while giving false assurance to marry with her, has developed physical relationship with her for the last one year, owing to which, a child was born out of their wedlock and later on, after exploiting her physically, he refused to marry with her and, based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC in connection with Crime No.01/2016 and during the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Preeti Singh (PW-3), who has submitted the MLC Report (Ex.P-5) of her, opining that the prosecutrix had sexual relations in the past, who delivered a male child of seven months and advised for DNA Test for ascertaining the paternity of the child. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kanker against him with regard to the offence mentioned here-in-above and, the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, and after considering the materials available on record, the charge was framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, 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 09 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 3 4) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix, held that the alleged relationship of her with the respondent, was made with her own consent and accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State 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, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent as such. 6) No one appears on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice of this appeal. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, based upon the written report (Ex.P-7) lodged by the prosecutrix, wherein it was alleged by her that the alleged relationship was made by the respondent for the last one year, while assuring to marry with her, but after the child was born out of their wedlock, he refused to marry with her. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-5 and a bare perusal of her testimony would reveal the fact that her relation 4 with the respondent was made with her own consent and even the Dr. Priti Singh, (PW-3), who medically examined the prosecutrix, has not found any kind of injury on her body. In view thereof, it is apparent that the alleged relation was made with the consent of the prosecutrix herself and, the trial Court while taking note of the alleged version of the prosecutrix, vis-a-vis, the statement of Dr. Priti Singh, (PW-3), 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. 9) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SSD/- SD/-D/-d/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane