1 2025:CGHC:51294-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 88 of 2018 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The In-charge Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • Swapnil Tiwari S/o Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Bhagwati Marbles, Santoshi Nagar, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 15/10/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22/11/2017 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, District Raipur (C.G.) in S.T. No.209/2016, whereby, the respondent-Swapnil Tiwari has been CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.16 11:28:20 +0530 2 acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (n) of IPC. 2) It is alleged by the prosecution that the respondent, while projecting himself to be a divorcee, allured the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and made the physical relations with her for the period commencing with effect from January, 2016 to July, 2016 and, based upon the alleged allegation, the respondent has been charge- sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and, according to her, the respondent while showing himself to be a divorcee, has made the alleged relations with her from July, 2015 and, it was deposed further that she came to know subsequently, that he was not a divorcee, but from her testimony, particularly para 8, would, however, reveal the fact that when she made a friend request on ‘Facebook’, a status of the respondent was shown to be a “married man”. It is to be seen further that though, it was stated by her that the respondent was having love affair with some one else, but the said fact was, however, not disclosed by her when an FIR was lodged on 31/08/2016, nor the said fact was revealed from her statement (Ex.P-13) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix has, thus, suppressed these material facts when the alleged report was lodged by her. 4) Even otherwise, the alleged relation, alleged to have been made against him was upto July, 2016, but despite knowing the fact that 3 the respondent was not a divorcee, no report was, however, lodged by her immediately thereafter and the reasons assigned by her, as revealed from the FIR, would show that after returning of her parents, she lodged the said report. But, in her statement, it was stated by her that since she was mentally ill, therefore, after recovering from her said illness, she lodged the report on 31/08/2016 and, it reveals from para 19 of her testimony that since she was assured by the respondent, therefore, she did not lodge the report earlier. Contradictory reasons have, thus, been assigned by her in lodging the delayed report. The trial Court, after taking note of those materials, has therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 5) 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