1 2025:CGHC:26355-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.7 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Sundar Lal @ Kana Thakur S/o Munge Singh, Aged 25 Years, Caste Dhakad, Occupation Rajmistri, R/o Village Bhirliinga, Schoolpara, Police Post Bastar, Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. .. Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Shri Tapan Chandra, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 20/06/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 07.01.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.04/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the commission of offence punishable under Sections 354, 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and also under SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989”). 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 13.04.2016, the prosecutrix/victim lodged a report before the Police Station Outpost Bastar, alleging therein that when she was sleeping along with her husband and child, the respondent came and demanded tobacco and, thereafter, in order to outrage her modesty, forcefully caught hold of her hand and chest and tried to commit rape. It was alleged further that when she objected on making noise, her husband and daughter wake up, owing to which, the respondent fled away from the spot. 3) Based upon the alleged information, an FIR was registered in Zero Number vide Ex.P-4 and thereafter, Numbered FIR was registered vide Ex.P-6 against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of IPC in connection with Crime No.118/2016. She was, thereafter, examined medically by Dr. Smt. Arpita Lagoo (PW-8), who has submitted her report (Ex.P-9) and was unable to give any definite opinion regarding sexual assault upon her and, after recording the statement of the prosecutrix and others, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted its charge- sheet before the learned trial Court against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 376 of IPC and also under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, and after considering the material available on record, the 3 charges punishable under Sections 354, 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, were framed, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents, while one witness was examined by the respondent in his defence. 5) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecutrix, held that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecutrix (PW-7), her daughter (PW-4) and husband (PW-5), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent as such. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while referring to the statement of the prosecutrix, her husband and daughter, submits that since there is material disparity in their evidence, therefore, the trial Court, after taking note of their testimonies, has rightly acquitted the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 4 8) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9) The respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 354, 376/511 and also under Section 3(1) (w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, with regard to the incident occurred on 13.04.2016 in the night around 10 to 11 PM. According to the prosecution, the respondent, with an intention to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix, has entered her house and demanded tobacco and thereafter, forcefully caught hold of her hand and chest and tried to commit sexual intercourse and, it was alleged further that when she shouted, her husband and daughter, who were also sleeping along with her, wake up and owing to which, the respondent fled away from the spot. 10) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-7 and according to her, the respondent on the said fateful day entered into her house and demanded tobacco and thereafter, tried to outrage her modesty and when she shouted, the respondent was running away from the spot and, her husband and daughter followed him and, likewise is the statement of her daughter (PW-4). But, when her husband (PW-5) was examined, it was, however, revealed from his testimony that he has not seen the respondent along with his wife and, reveals further from para 12 that the alleged allegations were levelled against him for the first time, when the Panchayat Meeting was convened and have lodged the 5 report, only because, mother of the respondent could not lodge the report against them. 11) What is, therefore, reflected from the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-7) and her daughter (PW-4) that on the fateful day, the respondent entered into her house and when the prosecutrix has shouted, the respondent was running away from the spot and the daughter and husband of her, have followed him, but the alleged version of them, was, however, not found to be corroborated by the statement of the husband of the prosecutrix (PW-5), as revealed from para-6 of his testimony and, that apart, the allegations were found to be made for the first time when the Panchayat Meeting was convened. In view thereof, it is difficult to hold that on the said fateful day, the respondent has entered into the house of the prosecutrix in order to outrage her modesty, as alleged by her in her complaint lodged two days after the occurrence of the alleged incident. The Trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 12) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane