1 2025:CGHC:19323-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 168 of 2014 Shaista Alias Rimsa Rehman D/o Late S.M. Rehman Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Dau Rice Mill, Nayapara, Jagdalpur, P.O. Jagdalpur, Police Station City Kotwali, Tehsil. Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 – The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Rajat Bajpai S/o Rajendra Bajpai Aged About 36 Years R/o Nayapara, Thana City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) --- Respondents For Appellant :Shri Punit Ruparel and Shri Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocates For State/Respondent No.1 :Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2. : Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate AND ACQA No. 298 of 2018 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Bastar, (CG) ---Appellant Versus SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.04.30 12:04:01 +0530 2 Rajat Bajpai S/o Rajendra Bajpai aged about 36 years, R/o- Nayapara, P.S.- Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State :Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 29.04.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. Since, both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 21.08.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar Place Jagdalpur (CG) in Sessions Trial No.45/2013, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the respondent- Rajat Bajpai has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 506(Part-II) of the IPC and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘the I.T.Act’). 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P-10) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 13.12.2012 before the Police Station, Bodhghat, Bastar place Jagdalpur, wherein, it has been alleged against the respondent- Rajat Bajpai that in the last week of month of July, the said respondent called her by his mobile in order to cover-up the news of an incident occurred in the park known as ‘Lamni Park’, but when they reached there, no incident as such was happened, and the said 3 respondent was wandering here and there and after some time, he brought cold-drink and gave her and after having the same, she became unconscious and, when she regained consciousness, she found herself in an unknown place, and her clothes were messy, owing to which, she asked about it from him, who then show her obscene photographs on his mobile, where she was shown to be with undergarments (Bra and panty). It was alleged further that based upon the alleged obscene photos, he blackmailed and compelled her to make physical relations with him. Based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered on the same day, i.e. 13.12.2012 by the concerned Police Station against him for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC in connection with Crime No.382/2012 and after completing the usual investigation, the final report was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Section 67 of the I.T. Act and the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where charges have been framed against the said respondent- Rajat Bajpai under Sections 376, 506 Part-II and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, which were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents along with article “A” (CD) and the respondent has examined 5 witnesses in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, 4 particularly the statement of the prosecutrix, held that the said respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted from the offence mentioned herein- above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeals have been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants submit that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal, as passed by the trial Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent- Rajat Bajpai, has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 67-A of the I.T. Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that the said respondent, while preparing some obscene photographs of the prosecutrix, has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully in the month of July, 2011. In order to establish the alleged fact, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-6 and it was deposed by her that on 28th July, 2011, she was called by the said respondent in order to cover-up the news of an incident occurred in the ‘Lamni Garden’, but when they reached 5 there, no incident as such was happened. It was deposed further that the said respondent, after some time, purchased the cold-drink and gave her and after drinking the same, she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found that she was naked and the said respondent was also naked. She deposed further that after showing the alleged obscene photographs of her through the CD, the respondent has continuously committed the sexual intercourse with her. Although, it was stated by the prosecutrix that on the alleged date of incident, when she regained consciousness, she and the respondent both were naked, but the said fact was, however, not found to be stated by her in her alleged report (Ex.P-10), lodged on 13.12.2012. It appears further from her statement made in the Court that on account of the alleged photographs and CD, she was sexually assaulted by the said respondent continuously, but the said fact was also not reflected from the alleged report (Ex.P-10). Even the alleged CD was not found to be recovered from the accused/respondent and in fact, it was recovered from the prosecutrix herself as article “A” vide seizure memo (Ex.P-3) on 13.12.2012. 10. It is to be seen further as reflected from her testimony, particularly para 2 that, she was called by the said respondent on 28th July, 2011, but the said fact was also not found in the alleged report and instead, it was mentioned therein that in the last week of month of July, she was called by the said respondent. There are, thus, material contradictions and omissions in her statement as well as the report (Ex.P-10), lodged by her on 13.12.2012. It is to be seen further that on account of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was examined 6 medically by Dr. Smt. Manisha Goyal (PW-2) on 13.12.2012, who vide her report (Ex.P-4), has not given any definite opinion regarding rape on her, nor the FSL report (Ex.P-18) was found positive. 11. Pertinently, to be noted here further that a report was earlier lodged by the prosecutrix on 19.08.2007 against one Vivek Malviya S/o Prem Malviya before the Superintendent of Police, Baitul, wherein, it was alleged by her that she was sexually assaulted by him (Vivek Malviya) by showing obscene CD of her and, an enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisonal Officer of Police, Baitul based upon her alleged report, but the report was found to be false. The said fact was obtained by the respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the concerned authority and placed the same vide Ex.D-3 in order to defend himself. It is to be seen further that when a specific question was put to her regarding the alleged incident occurred in Baitul, she has denied the same at para 30 of her statement and, instead it was stated that when said Vivek Malviya was trying to outrage her modesty (ched-chad), the alleged report was lodged and, deposed further that she was not aware whether her alleged report was found to be false by the said S.D.O.(P.), Baitul. It, thus, appears, as reflected from the alleged report (Ex.P-10) lodged by the prosecutrix on 13.12.2012, vis-a-vis her statement recorded before the Court, she is trying to implicate the said respondent falsely in connection with the alleged crime. 12. In view of aforesaid background, the trial Court after noticing the aforesaid materials and the evidence led by the parties, has not 7 committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent- Rajat Bajpai from the commission of the alleged crime, occurred on 13.12.2012, under Sections 376(1), 506(Part-II) of IPC and Section 67-A of the I.T. Act, so as to call for any interference in these appeals. 13. The appeals being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita