1 2025:CGHC:47445-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 326 of 2023 • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • Kamraj Sahu S/o Shri Gyanlal Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Near Sub Station, Village Datrenga, P.S. Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 16/09/2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) 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 23/02/2023 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.35/2022, whereby, the Respondent-Kamraj Sahu has been acquitted with regard to the CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.16 17:47:37 +0530 2 offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3) It is alleged by the prosecution that on 04/07/2022 when the prosecutrix, who was a married woman having two daughters, was watching the T.V. in her room at 11:30 PM, the respondent, the Sarpanch of the village, entered into her house and committed sexual intercourse with her. 4) From perusal of the record, it appears that on account of the incident, occurred on 04/07/2022 at 11:30 PM, the written report (Ex.P-9) was lodged by her only on 14/07/2022, i.e. ten days after its occurrence and, based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered on the said day. It was stated by her that since she was in fear, therefore, after consulting with the family members, the alleged report was lodged. 5) Perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-9) would reveal the fact that when the alleged incident was occurred, her husband was sleeping alongwith her children in another room, but despite of the occurrence of the alleged incident, she has not disclosed this fact to her husband and, even no proper explanation was assigned as to why the alleged report (Ex.P-9) was made after passing of considerable period of 10 days. It is to be seen further that neither in her report (Ex.P-9), nor her statement (Ex.P-16), recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it was alleged that the alleged offence was committed by him, while knowing fully that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community. 3 6) It reveals further from her testimony, particularly paragraph 11, that on the said fateful day, the respondent was stayed with her for half an hour and even when he left the house, she went towards her husband and children only after one hour and started doing her daily routine work continuously and during the periods of 10 days, she has not disclosed the occurrence of this incident either to her husband or any of her family members. It is to be seen further, as reflected from paragraph 14 of her testimony, that she had called the respondent for many times from 05/06/2022 upto 04/07/2022 and, even after the occurrence of the alleged incident, she had talked on various times with him upto 20/07/2022. Even Dr. Suma Velgin Ekka (PW-10), who examined her has, however, not found any injuries on her body, as evidenced from her report (Ex.P-17). 7) In view of such circumstances, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from commission of the alleged crime. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Chandrakant