1 2025:CGHC:33989-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.264 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Lachhiram Sahu @ Chhotu S/o Akadashiya Sahu @ Narad Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Lachhanpur, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy.GA For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Sumit Singh, learned counsel DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 18/07/2025 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 11.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.55/2015, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.07.21 11:19:40 +0530 2 2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2014, an FIR (Ex.P-4) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station- Janjgir, alleging inter alia, that on 01.04.2014, the respondent, while giving false assurance of marriage, took her to Village Seoni (Champa) and kept her in the house of one Pitambar and has committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, he took her to Raipur, where they stayed for three days and at that place also, he made physical relations with her. It is alleged further that the respondent thereafter took her to Village-Chhuri (Katghora), where they stayed for a month and during the said period, the respondent has made physical relations with her and on 16.05.2014, he took her to Village Tundari (Kharsiya) and on 08.06.2014, he fled away, while leaving her at the said village and, when she requested him to marry with her, but, he refused and therefore, she has lodged the alleged report (Ex.P-4). During investigation, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P-7 and was examined medically by Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-12), who vide her report (Ex.P-7) opined that the prosecutrix is habitual for sexual intercourse and has not found any injury on her body and, after completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC in connection with Crime No.317/2014 and, the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charges have been framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC and, the charges so framed, were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3 3) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix has left her home of her own and has visited several places with the respondent and accordingly she was held to be a consenting party and the respondent has, thus, been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4) 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, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-5), has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, while referring to the statement of the prosecutrix(PW-5), submits that she has left the home of her own on 01.04.2014 and has visited several places with the respondent, therefore, the trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that she was a consenting party while acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 6) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (1) of IPC. According to the prosecution, the respondent while alluring the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage, took her to Village Seoni (Champa) on 01.04.2014 and thereafter, to Raipur and 4 Chhuri (Katghora) and also took her thereafter to Tundari (Kharsiya) and has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. 8) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecurtrix was examined as PW-5 and, it appears from her testimony that the respondent, while threatening her on 01.04.2014, took her to Village Seoni (Champa), where he kept her in the house of his friend, namely, Pitambar for a day and has committed sexual intercourse forcefully. She deposed further that on the next day morning, he took her to Raipur and kept her in his friend’s house for two days and during the said period, he made physical relations with her and thereafter, he took her to Village Chhuri (Katghora), where he kept her in his friend’s (Vinod) house for 20-25 days and during the said period, he has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. She deposed further that the respondent, thereafter, took her to Village Tundari (Kharsiya) of Raigarh District and kept her in a rented house for 15-20 days and during the said period, he has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully and thereafter, while leaving her, he fled away to somewhere else and thereafter, she called her mother on phone and returned to Village Lachhanpur and went to the respondent’s house, but she was kicked away by his parents. It reveals further from her testimony that after returning, a request was made by her for solemnization of marriage, when she met with the respondent, but he refused to marry with her and therefore, she has lodged the alleged report on 12.06.2014 (Ex.P-4). Although, it was stated by her that the respondent, while alluring her on 01.04.2014, took her to Village Seoni (Champa) and kept her in his friend’s house and has committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, took her to different places as 5 mentioned herein-above and has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully, but, a bare perusal of para 8 of her testimony would, however, show that she of her own had left the house on 01.04.2014 in the evening around 7 P.M. and met with the respondent after few steps away from her house. In view thereof, it cannot be said that she was taken away by the respondent forcefully on the said day i.e. 01.04.2014 and has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. 9) Pertinently to be noted here further that, she (prosecutrix) was examined medically by Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-3) on 12.06.2014, but, she vide her report (Ex.P-3), has, however, found that the prosecutrix is habitual for sexual intercourse and has not found any internal or external injuries on her body. 10) In view of such circumstances, particularly, when the prosecutrix has visited several places along with the respondent, as observed herein- above, it is difficult to hold that the respondent, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, took her forcefully on the said date i.e. 01.04.2014 and has committed sexual intercourse with her. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, has, therefore, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party with regard to the alleged incident, while acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge S D/- SD/- D /- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane