1 2025:CGHC:12518-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 33 of 2025 XYZ ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anmol Saluja @ Jaspreet Saluja S/o Jaspal Singh Saluja Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Ward No. 19, Punjabi Para, Khariyarroad, Nuapada (Odisha) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L. D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 17.03.2025 Heard on Admission. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 14 A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989”), questioning the legality and propriety of the Judgment ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.03.18 11:13:14 +0530 2 dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge, under the Act 1989 in Special Criminal Case No.H-01/2023, whereby the Respondent No.2-Anmol Saluja @ Jaspreet Saluja has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(k) of IPC and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 13.11.2022, a report (Ex.P/10) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station Bagbahra of District-Mahasamund, alleging therein, that she came in contact with the respondent through facebook and started talking with each other, but on 28.02.2022, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, he took her by his pick-up vehicle to his house at Khariyan Road at 3:30 pm and committed sexual intercourse with her contrary to her wish and, based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P/11) was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and, during trial she was examined medically by Dr. Garima Yadav (PW/2) who has submitted her report vide (Ex.P/2) where it was stated that the alleged intercourse was done for the first time on 28.02.2022, and thereafter, she was never subjected for the same again and, after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 366, 376(2)(k) of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act 1989, and after considering the materials available on record, the trial Court has framed charges against him under 3 Sections 366, 376(2)(k) of IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Act 1989, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the Respondent No.2, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents, along with the caste certificate of the prosecutrix, while none was examined by the said Respondent in his defence. 4. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix, and her mother, held that the alleged act was not committed by the said respondent contrary to her wish, and, accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offences mentioned herein- above and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/prosecutrix submits that the finding of the Trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime is, apparently, contrary to law, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecutrix and her mother have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent No.2- Anmol Saluja @ Jaspreet Saluja has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(k) of IPC and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 on the basis of the report (Ex.P/10) lodged by the prosecutrix on 13.11.2022. 4 7. It appears from a bare perusal of the alleged report (Ex.P/10) that, the prosecutrix, who was a Anganbadi Karyakarta, came in contact with the said respondent through Facebook and started talking with each other and, it appears further that on the pretext of marriage, she was taken by him to his house by his pick-up vehicle on 28.02.2022 and has committed sexual intercourse with her around 3:30 PM, contrary to her wish. It, however, appears that when she was examined before the Court as P.W./5, she was found to be deviated from her alleged allegation by saying that the alleged act was done by him forcefully. That apart, she was taken by him by his motorcycle, as stated specifically by her and not by the pick-up vehicle as was stated in her alleged report (Ex.P/10). 8. It is to be seen further that she had informed the incident to her mother and also the father of the respondent in the month of July, 2022, but her mother (P.W./2) has, however, not stated so. Although, it was stated by the prosecutrix that the respondent had used obscene words in the name of her caste and has refused to marry with her, but, no such allegation regarding the use of obscene words was found to be placed in her written report (Ex.P/10), lodged on 13.11.2022. The alleged version of the prosecutrix, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 9. Besides, it is to be seen that despite the occurrence of the alleged incident on 28.02.2022, no information about the alleged incident was disclosed by her and had informed only in the month of July, 2022, and when he had denied to marry with her while using 5 obscene words in the name of her caste, yet the report was lodged only on 13.11.2022, even without assigning any plausible reasons for it. She, thus, appears to be a consenting party for the occurrence of the alleged incident and, it can not be said that the alleged act was done by the said respondent contrary to her wish and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged offence, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan