1 2025:CGHC:47410-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 291 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Laxminarayan @ Raju Patel, S/o Shri Siyaram Patel, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Teligundra, Police Station Ranitarai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 16/09/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 05/01/2023 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.15/2020, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(k)(n) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.17 10:35:46 +0530 2 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989”). 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that, the respondent while alluring the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage has committed sexual intercourse with her on 02/11/2019 and has made the alleged relation continuously from November, 2019 up to December, 2019. It is alleged further that, the said respondent on 08/02/2020 had assured her to marry, but on 16/02/2020, he has refused to marry, as she belongs to lower caste community, like a Scheduled Caste. 3. In order to establish the alleged relation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and, according to her testimony, it appears that she came in contact with the respondent on 11/07/2019, who then started calling her on phone and came to her rented house on 02/11/2019 and, thereafter, they went to the Mall for shopping and went to City Mall for viewing the movie and while staying her house, he made physical relation with her, like husband and wife. It appears further that in the month of December, 2019, he again made the physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage. Although, it was stated by her at paragraph 5 that, she has given her consent for the alleged relation because she was assured by him on 08/02/2020 to marry with her, but on 16/02/2020 he refused to marry as she belongs to lower caste community. The alleged assurance, made on 08/02/2020, was however, not found to be reflected from her statement (Ex.P/7) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, as according to her said statement, it was made in the month of January. 4. Pertinently to be noted here further, as revealed from her written report (Ex.P/1), that on 16/02/2020, the said respondent has refused to marry 3 with her, but, no report was lodged by her immediately thereafter, and, the alleged report was lodged only on 04/05/2020 and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered and no proper explanation was given as to why it was lodged with a delay of three months. Even, Dr. Rajni Chourasiya (PW-2), who examined her on 04/05/2020, was unable to give any definite opinion in her report (Ex.P/8) regarding the commission of sexual assault upon her. 5. In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant