1 2025:CGHC:54066-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 178 of 2024 XYZ ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prduman Kumar Netam @ Sanni, S/o Late Shri Koushal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No.5, In Back Of Sharda Temple, Indira Nagar, Dongargarh, Police Station-Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, 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. 06/11/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 26/10/2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.06 18:24:55 +0530 2 (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.03/2023, whereby, the respondent No.2- Prduman Kumar Netam @ Sanni has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that, a written report (Ex.P/5) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 11/01/2023 before the Police Station- Dongargarh alleging therein that, she is working as a Bank Correspondence (B.C.) in Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, where the respondent No.2- Prduman Kumar Netam @ Sanni was working as a Operator and, she came in his contact for the last 3-4 months. It is alleged further that, on the date of incident, i.e. 24/11/2022, she went to village- Piparkhar Khurd along with the said respondent for doing some official work, but while returning around 08:00 P.M., he took her forcefully to the forest and committed sexual intercourse with her. Further of her allegation is that she was threatened by him to disclose the alleged incident in the office and while threatening as such, pressurized her to make the physical relations and has disclosed the occurrence of the alleged incident to her husband on the date, when the alleged report was lodged, i.e. on 11/01/2023. 3. Based upon the aforesaid information, an FIR (Ex.P/6) was registered against the said respondent on 11/01/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and, after completion of due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh with regard to the alleged offence and, the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned 3 trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the said respondent has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which was denied by him and claim to be tried. 4. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-7 and, according to her, the alleged act was done upon her by the said respondent on 24/11/2022, but, the alleged fact was disclosed by her to her mother and husband only in the month of December, 2022. Further of her testimony would reveal the fact that, the said respondent used to visit her house even after the occurrence of the alleged incident and, after the consultation with the family members, the alleged report was lodged by her. The alleged incident was, thus, found to be occurred on 24/11/2022, but was disclosed by her to her mother and husband in the month of December, 2022, i.e. after passing of approximately the period of one month. It is to be seen further that despite disclosing of the alleged incident in December, 2022, the report was, however, lodged only on 11/01/2023. No explanation to this effect has, however, been made by her as to why she was kept silent for such a long period of 48 days from the occurrence of the alleged incident. That apart, perusal of her alleged report would reveal the fact that she disclosed the alleged incident to her husband and mother on the day when, it was lodged, i.e., 11/01/2023. It, thus, appears that, there is not only material disparity regarding the disclosure of this particular fact but, also found to be lodged much after its occurrence, as observed herein-above, even without assigning any plausible reasons for it. 4 She was, thus, a consenting party for the alleged relations with him. 5. Pertinently to be noted here further the statement of her mother, who was examined as PW-2 and according to her, she was informed by her daughter (prosecutrix) that, the alleged incident was occurred on 22/11/2022, though, the incident was alleged to have been occurred, according to the prosecutrix, on 24/11/2022 and, it reveals further form para 6 of her cross-examination that, in order to implicate him, the alleged report was lodged as the said respondent used to pass messages to her son-in-law. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, coupled with the absence of plausible reasons for lodging the report much after the occurrence of the alleged incident, we, therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal. 7. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant