1 2025:CGHC:10720-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 18 of 2025 XYZ ... Appellant versus 1 - Hemlal Manhar, S/o Battulal Manhar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Devrani, P.S. Birra, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Birra, District – Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shyam Sunder Tekchandani, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 05/03/2025 Heard on admission. 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 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.05 17:33:59 +0530 2 03/09/2024 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.33/2023, whereby, the respondent No.1- Hemlal Manhar, has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that an undated report (Ex.P/3) was lodged by the prosecutrix, a 37 years old lady, to the effect that she was married to another person 20 years ago, who left her and by taking advantage of it, one Hemlal Manhar, the respondent No.1 herein of village Devrani, has continuously developed the physical relationship with her by alluring her on the pretext of marriage for about 7 years. It is alleged further that an affidavit was executed by him, wherein, he has stated that he will marry to her and the same was notarized in the year, 2021 but, he didn’t take the prosecutrix to his home as his wife. Further allegation of the prosecutrix is that, when she lodged the alleged report at Police Station- Birra, a crime under Section 376 of IPC was registered against the said respondent and after completion of the investigation, the said respondent was arrested and the Investigating Officer has submitted the final report before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa with regard to the offence mentioned hereinabove, in connection with Crime No.15/2023 and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the First Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) where the charge has been framed under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, which was denied by the said respondent and claimed to be tried. 3 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent No.1, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and has exhibited 26 documents, 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, who has turned hostile without supporting her alleged allegations, held that the said respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, and accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent No.1 is not the author of the alleged crime is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting the said respondent as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No.2 has supported the contention of the counsel for the appellant. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that, the respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC on the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix in the year, 2023, vide Ex.P/3 and, it appears further from perusal of the affidavits (Article A2 and Article A3) of the prosecutrix and the respondent No.1 and also the agreement (Article A1) executed jointly by them that they have decided to live as 4 husband and wife and, that from perusal of the alleged report (Ex.P/3) and the statement (Ex.P/21) of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the respondent No.1 has been alleged to have developed the physical relationship with her while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, but, when the prosecutrix was examined before the Court as PW-3 has, however, not supported the alleged allegations and, instead contrarily, it was stated that she has lodged the alleged report owing to some money dispute against the said respondent. In view of such circumstances and particularly, when the prosecutrix herself has failed to establish the alleged allegations as leveled by her against the respondent No.1, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the said respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 8. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant