1 2025:CGHC:47940-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 341 of 2025 ABC (Details of the applicant/victim and her affidavit is annexed in a separate envelope) as per Section 72 of the BNS, 2023. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station - Utai, District – Durg (CG) 2 - Devendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Puneet Ram Sahu, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Kokdi, Police Station - Utai, District Durg (CG) ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Anmol Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 18.09.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge(F.T.C.), District Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial No.182/2023, whereby, the respondent No.2-Devendra Kumar Sahu, SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.09.19 10:49:57 +0530 2 has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 and 506 Part-II of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 02.05.2023, who is the daughter-in-law of the respondent No.2, alleging inter alia, that on 27.04.2023, around 1.00 pm, when she was cleaning the Kitchen, her father-in-law came and tried to commit sexual intercourse with her and, she somehow escaped herself from his clutches and informed regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident to her aunt on telephone, on 01.05.2023. Further of her allegation is that since she was threatened by him to kill, if she disclosed the incident to anyone else, therefore, she could not have dared to lodge the report immediately thereafter and, based upon her said written report, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against him, for the offence mentioned herein above. 3. Perusal of the record would show that her statement (Ex.P-9) was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 06.05.2023 and, a bare perusal of it would reveal the fact that she has exaggerated regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident, as it was stated by her therein that on the said day, her father-in-law has inserted his fingers on her private parts and has pressed her breast and was kissing her, but the alleged material facts were, however, not found to be reflected from her alleged report (Ex.P-1) lodged on 02.05.2023. It is to be seen further, as reflected from her alleged report that the alleged incident committed by her father-in-law was informed telephonically to her aunt on 01.05.2023, but her aunt, who was examined as PW-5, has, however, not supported to her alleged version and, instead, it was deposed, as 3 revealed from para 6 of her testimony, that she was, in fact, informed regarding some earlier incident when she was outraged by him. The statement of the prosecutrix was, thus, not found to be supported by her said aunt (PW-5). That apart, although, it was stated by the prosecutrix that since she was threatened by him, therefore, she could not have lodged the report immediately upon the occurrence of the incident, but from perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it appears that the respondent was not with her from the date of the alleged incident, till 01.05.2023 and, in fact, in the meantime, her parents had met her. Therefore, the alleged explanation as offered by her regarding lodging the delayed report, cannot be held to be acceptable. 4. In view of the aforesaid background, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. 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