1 2025:CGHC:41704-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.254 of 2023 1 - Abc R/o Abc ... Appellant/Complainant versus 1 - Rajesh Dhruv S/o Lakhamu Dhruv Aged About 28 Years Working as the Farmer R/o Village Sitalavand Nadipara, Police Station Bhanpuri Bastar Tahsil And District Bastar (C.G.) Pin 494223 (Accused) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Bhanpuri Bastar (Crime Number 0037/2021) Tahsil And District Bastar (C.G.) Pin 494223 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 19/08/2025 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 28.01.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar. Place-Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.56/2021, whereby, the Respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.08.19 18:05:18 +0530 2 2) According to the prosecution, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 06.04.2021 before the Police Station-Bhanpuri, alleging inter alia, that the respondent, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, took her on 08.03.2021 at 11 PM to the Village Jondhra Badi Sitalavand and kept her up to 14.03.2021 and has committed sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged further that on 17.03.2021, he refused to marry with her and dropped her to the parental house and, based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the respondent under Section 376 of IPC and after completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and, the trial Court has framed the charge under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and, from a bare perusal of her statement, it appears that she has denied regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident and even she has denied the lodging of the alleged written report (Ex.P-1) and, it was denied further by her that during the said period, i.e. from 08.03.2021 up to 14.03.2021, the respondent has made the alleged physical relations with her, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage. Further, it appears from the evidence of her parents (PW-2 and PW-3), that if the respondent had given us the maintenance amount, then, no report as such, would have been lodged and, deposed further that the alleged report was lodged for obtaining the maintenance amount. 3 4) That apart, she was examined by Dr. Shrikhanla Jain, (PW-4), who, however, has not found any internal or external injuries on her, nor any definite opinion was given regarding sexual intercourse with her, as revealed from her MLC Report (Ex.P-8). 5) It is to be seen further that the Vaginal Slide (“A”) and Vaginal Swab (“B”) belonging to the prosecutrix, were sent for chemical examination, but no human sperm was, however, revealed from those articles vide FSL Report (Ex.P-24). No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, in order to attribute the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime. 6) In view of above, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the admission stage itself. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- SD (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane