1 2025:CGHC:10058-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 97 of 2017 The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Surendra Singh S/o Bhuwan Singh Markam, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bastipara, Ranjna, Police Station Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 28.02.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 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 05.11.2016 passed by the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.03.01 11:26:50 +0530 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (CG) in Sessions Trial No.45/2013, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 16.04.2013, the prosecutrix (PW-3) lodged a written report (Ex. P-3) before the Police Station, Pali, District Korba, alleging therein, that from the last three years, the accused/respondent was continuously exploiting her sexually while alluring on the pretext of marriage. It is alleged further that due to the alleged physical relationship, she conceived pregnancy of about 32 weeks and the said fact was disclosed by her to her parents and on 13.03.2013, a Community Meeting was held, where the respondent/accused had agreed for marriage on the occasion of Holi Festival and has given a written affidavit in this regard as well. But, whenever, the prosecutrix used to ask for marriage, the respondent kept on avoiding and ultimately, when she conceived pregnancy and despite of her request, when he refused to marry, the alleged report (Ex.P-3) was lodged by her and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered on the same day against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the final report was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali against him in connection with Crime No.87/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and, the matter was, thereafter, committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora for trial, where charge was framed against the respondent under Section 376 of IPC, which was denied by him 3 and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and has exhibited 28 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix, who is major, was a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence and accordingly, acquitted the respondent from the commission of the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State 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, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 4 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC on the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix on 16.04.2013 (Ex.P-3). In order to establish the said fact, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-3 and in her statement, particularly, in cross- examination, it was stated that she was seeing TV in one Dadu Singh’s house along with her friends and at that particular time, the respondent came and took her to the Badi in the month of August, 2012 and committed sexual intercourse with her for the first time and, stated further that when the respondent has committed the alleged act, her brother and uncle have seen and caught hold of her. She deposed further that when she was returning from the School along with her friend, at that particular time, the respondent again took her to the field and committed sexual intercourse with her and admitted further in her cross-examination that 2-3 days thereafter, when she was returning to her home along with her friends, the respondent/accused again took her to the field and committed the alleged offence, owing to which, she became pregnant and informed about the said fact to her parents. 9. 9. From perusal of the evidence of the prosecutirx, who was admittedly, a major lady, it appears that she was one of the consenting party with regard to the alleged offence and that was the reason, as to why she has not lodged the report against the respondent, when the alleged offence was committed upon her by him and, while taking note of her statement, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in holding that she was a consenting party while acquitting him from the 5 commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita