1 2025:CGHC:52434-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 754 of 2024 • XYZ (The Details Of The Prosecutrix Is Enclosed In The Envelope Annexed With This Appeal) ... Appellant versus 1. Surendra Verma S/o Premlal Verma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Dhara, Chowki Mohara, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Chowki Mohara, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 28/10/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.28 17:37:19 +0530 2 legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29/04/2024 passed by the Additional Sesions Judge, Dongargarh, District Ragnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.13/2023, whereby, the respondent no.1- Surendra Verma has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(h), 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC. 2) According to the prosecution, it appears that a written complaint (Ex.P-7) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 08/05/2023 before the concerned Police Station of District Rajnandgaon, alleging therein, that the respondent no.1-Surendra Verma, who is the friend of her husband, came on 13/02/2023 at 09:00 AM when her husband was not at home and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully and threatened to kill her daughter and husband, if she disclosed the incident and, it was alleged further that since she was under fear, therefore, she could not disclose the alleged fact to her husband. It appears further from her alleged report that after a week of the occurrence of the alleged incident, he again came in the month of March, 2023 and while threatening her, committed the sexual intercourse with her and, alleged further that 2 days prior to lodging of the said report, i.e. on 06/05/2023, he again committed the alleged act upon her, though she was pregnant. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-16) was registered against the respondent for the offence mentioned herein-above. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-4 and narrated the alleged fact, as was deposed 3 by her in her said written report (Ex.P-7). Although, it was stated by her that the alleged offence was committed by him on 13/02/2023, 02/03/2023 and 06/05/2023, but when her statement (Ex.P-9) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was stated regarding the incident which was committed upon her only on 13/02/2023 while stating further that whenever, he get an opportunity, he committed the alleged act upon her forcefully. She has, thus, not disclosed the fact that he committed the sexual intercourse with her in March, 2023 and on 06/05/2023, as was stated by her in her said report (Ex.P-7). That apart, it reveals further from her testimony at para 10 that when the respondent has committed sexual intercourse with her on 13/02/2023, her hands and legs were opened and has not shouted. It is to be noted here further that when she was examined by Dr. Dipa (PW-10), no injury was, however, found on her body. 4) Umesh Janghel, who was the husband of the prosecutrix, was examined as PW-2 and a bare perusal of his statement would reveal the fact that he was informed by her regarding the incident, which was occurred on 06/05/2025 only and, not with regard to the incident, which was occurred earlier, i.e. on 13/02/2023 and 02/03/2023. It reveals further from para 3 of his testimony that on 06/05/2023 and 07/05/2023, he was out of station, but his mother and daughter were at home. 5) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering further the statement of the prosecutrix and her husband, coupled with absence of the injuries on her body, it, thus, 4 appears that the prosecutrix was the consenting party with regard to the alleged incident and, the trial Court, after taking note of those materials has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the said respondent from commission of the alleged crime. 6) The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Chandrakant