1 2025:CGHC:36069-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.285 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Churiya District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Bhajanlal Jatav S/o Yadram @ Aadiram Jatav Aged About 55 Years R/o Thathipur, Ward No. 22, Near New Godam Basti, Police Station Thathipur, District Gwalior (M. P.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Shri Ashwell Franklin, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Samir 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 25/07/2025 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.), Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No.39/2017, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2) of IPC. 2 2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.2017, a report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix, aged 37 years, before the Police Station, Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, alleging therein, that on 04.04.2017 at about 5 A.M., she was alone at home and, the respondent-accused, at the relevant point of time, entered into her house and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully and based upon the alleged information, the concerned Police Station has registered the offence against the respondent-accused under Section 376 of IPC and during the course of investigation, she was examined medically on 20.04.2017 by Dr. Kiran Chandekar and her statement (Ex.P-2) under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded on 02.05.2017 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki and after recovering undergarment of the prosecutrix as well as of the respondent-accused, the same were sent for chemical examination and vide FSL Report (Ex.P-24), no human sperm was found on her undergarment and after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon against the respondent- accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC in connection with Crime No.72/2017 and, the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge has been framed against the respondent under Section 376(2) of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and sister-in-law (PW-3) and also by taking note of statement (EX.P-2) 3 of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, held that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, he has 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-1) and her relatives, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him as such. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, while referring to the statement of the prosecutrix(PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and also referring to the statement (Ex.P-2) of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, submits that since nothing was done with her, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent-accused 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 Section 376 (2) of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 04.04.2017, at about 5 A.M., when the prosecutrix was alone at home, the 4 respondent-accused entered into her house and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. 8) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecurtrix was examined as PW-1 and, it appears from her testimony, particularly para 1, that nothing was done with her and, it appears further from para 2 of her statement that her signature in the FIR (Ex.P-1), lodged on 19.04.2017 after 15 days of the occurrence of the alleged incident, was obtained forcefully by her husband. That apart, when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Rajnandgaon on 02.05.2017 (Ex.P-2), it was stated by her that the respondent had not come to her house. 9) It is to be seen further that although, it was mentioned in her alleged report (Ex.P-1) that she was alone at her home on the said fateful day, i.e., 04.04.2017, but the said fact was, however, not found to be established by her, nor even found to be supported by the statement of her mother (PW-2) and her sister-in-law (PW-3), as according to them, they were at home on the said fateful day. There is, thus, no evidence on record showing that on the said fateful day, when the prosecutrix was at home, she was either alone or the respondent has entered into her house. Besides, no proper explanation was made as to why the report was lodged belatedly on 19.04.2017, though the alleged incident was occurred on 04.04.2017. 10) Perusal of the material on record would show further that the undergarment of the prosecutrix as well as of the respondent were sent for chemical examination, but, according to the FSL Report (Ex.P-24), no human sperm was, however, found on the undergarment of the 5 prosecutrix. It, thus, appears that the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence, attributing the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. The trial Court, after taking note of those materials, has not erred in acquitting the respondent 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 SD/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane