1 2025:CGHC:47693-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 69 of 2017 The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Surguja (CG). ... Appellant versus Asan Ram Gond S/o Khoyaram Gond, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Kargidih, Police Station Lundra, District- Surguja (CG) ---- Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant/State : Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Shri Vishal Sahu, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 17.09.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Surguja (Ambikapur) (CG) in Sessions Trial No.103/2015, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 450, 506 Part-II and 376 of IPC. SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.09.17 17:30:00 +0530 2 3. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 31.05.2015, around 11.00 pm, the prosecutrix was sleeping along with her son in the Varandah of her house and, at that particular time, the respondent, who is brother-in- law (Jeth) of her, came and gagged her mouth forcefully and committed sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged further that prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, i.e. on 30.05.2015, the respondent came near her house and wanted to keep her as his wife and was threatening her and, based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered on 02.06.2015. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears, as revealed from the statement of the Kotwar of the concerned village, namely, Chanak Das (PW-2), that the prosecutrix had come to him and informed that the respondent while holding of her hand, told her that he will drag her and, for the said purpose, it was requested by her to convene a meeting and nothing apart from that was informed by her to him. Besides, perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), who was 40 years old, having five children, though, it was alleged that the respondent has committed sexual intercourse with her, but further of her testimony would show that, at that particular time, her son was sleeping beside her, who, however, not supported her alleged version, as he got up, but did not oppose the alleged act of the respondent. Although, it was stated by her that when the respondent has closed her mouth with the aid of cloth, her son got up, but para 5 of her testimony would reveal the fact that he was, in fact, sleeping. That apart, it reveals from her cross- examination at para 10 that in the alleged meeting convened at her instance, the respondent was offered to pay a sum of Rupees Ten 3 Thousand, but he did not pay the same. She deposed further that if he would have deposited the said amount, she would have then not lodged the report. Her evidence is, thus, not found to be trustworthy. 5. Moreover, her son, who was examined as PW-3, though stated at para 1 that the respondent had climbed upon his mother, but was not found to be stuck in his cross-examination, as he had stated at para 4 that he has not seen that the respondent had climbed upon his mother. It appears further from his testimony that, in fact, he was sleeping at that particular time. The statement of the prosecutrix, thus, not found to be supported even by her son, who was along with her at the relevant point of time. 6. It is to be seen further that the alleged incident was occurred on 31.05.2015, but no report was lodged immediately thereafter and the written report was lodged by her only on 02.06.2015, i.e. 02 days after the occurrence of the alleged incident, even without assigning any proper explanation to this effect. That apart, the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix on 03.06.2015, has, however, not found any injury on her body. Although, human sperm was found on the slides of the prosecutrix as well as, the undergarment of the respondent, but the same was not sent for the chemical examination and, therefore, in absence of non-compliance of the provision prescribed under Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C., as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC, 130, no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it. In view of such circumstances, coupled with material disparities in the statement of the prosecutrix and her son, it cannot be said that the alleged act was 4 done upon her, as alleged by her in her alleged report (Ex.P-1) and, after considering these materials, the trial Court, has not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE sunita