1 2025:CGHC:1408-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 247 of 2023 Xyz Nill ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station - Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 - Ram Kumar Patel, S/o Ghasiya Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Temar, Ward No. 11, Thana Sakti, Dist. Janjgir - Champa (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant/ Prosecutrix : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgement on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 09.01.2025 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 23.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.05/2022, whereby, the Respondent No.2-Ram Kumar 2 Patel has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 376(1) and 506 Part-II of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, a written report was lodged by the prosecutrix on 24.12.2021 (Ex.P-7) alleging therein, that on 11.12.2021 at 5:00 pm, she went to Sakti by her bicycle, but the tyre of it was punctured, therefore, she was going to her home while walking and at that particular time, the Respondent No.2-Ram Kumar Patel met her on the way and asked to drop her home, owing to which, she accompanied him on his motorcycle. It is alleged further that the said respondent, instead, took her to some other place and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. Based upon the alleged written report, the First Information Report was lodged against him on the same day vide (Ex.P-8) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, and after recording the statement of the prosecutrix, along with others, and that by completion of investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakti, who in turn, committed the matter before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for its trial where, the charges have been framed against the Respondent No.2 under Section 376(1) and 506 Part-II of IPC, which, was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the said respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents, while none was examined by the said respondent in his defence. 3 4. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since there was delay in lodging the First Information Report with regard to the incident, occurred on 11.12.2021, and as the prosecutrix has failed to explain the same and that by observing further the statement of Dr. Seema Nandini Choudhary (PW-2), held that she is a consenting party with regard to the alleged incident and, accordingly, while arriving to such a conclusion, the said respondent has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence, as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the prosecutrix has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Prosecutrix submits that the finding of the Court below holding that the said respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to the materials available on record. It is contended further that though, there was delay in lodging the written report with regard to the offence, occurred on 11.12.2021, but since the delay was sufficiently explained by her, the same was, however, not taken into consideration in its proper manner and thereby, the trial Court erred in acquitting the said respondent as such. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1/ State has supported the contention of the counsel for the appellant. 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 with regard to the incident, occurred on 11.12.2021, a written report (Ex.P-7) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 24.12.2021 and based upon which, the alleged crime was registered against the Respondent No.2- Ram Kumar Patel. There was, thus, a delay of 13 days in lodging the said report and the reasons assigned for it was that the said respondent has threatened to kill her and her parents. However, it appears from her testimony, particularly Para 7, that the alleged report was written by her counsel and, it appears further that prior to that, she met her said counsel along with one Raja Lodhi and her cousin, namely, Vikash, on 14.12.2021 and had talked with the said respondent on phone, where she told her to make an apology, but since he refused, therefore, she lodged the alleged report on 24.12.2021, otherwise, she would not have lodged the report, if the respondent would have make an apology. In view of her such admission, the reasons for delay in lodging the alleged report cannot be held to be a genuine one and rather appears to have been made for attributing him falsely for the commission of the alleged crime. 9. That apart, no forceful intercourse was, however, found to be committed on her, as per the opinion given by Dr. Seema Nandini Choudhary (PW-2), nor any injury was found upon her. The prosecutrix was, thus, found to be a consenting party with regard to the incident, occurred on 11.12.2021. The Trial Court by taking note of these material piece of evidence led by the prosecution has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the said respondent from the 5 commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is, dismissed. Sd/-Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan