1 2025:CGHC:20645-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 306 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-Koilibeda, District North Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus Praveen Krishna Katlam, S/o Murha Ram Katlam, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kusumpara, Koilibeda, P.S. Koilibeda, District North Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 06/05/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.07 10:48:12 +0530 2 Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 05/06/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.67/2015, whereby, the respondent- Praveen Krishna Katlam has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376(2)(n) of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, on 05/05/2015, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station- Koilibeda, alleging therein, that two years prior to lodging of the report, the respondent while alluring her on the pretext of marriage has made physical relations with her on many times. It was alleged further that, he used to keep her sometimes in Narayanpur and sometimes in Koilibeda and alleged further that, in the month of June, 2014, he solemnized the marriage with her in the Temple of Village- Rowghat and alleged further that because of the alleged relations, she became pregnant. It was stated further that, he kept her for two weeks in the house of one Karan Dhruw, the resident of village-Koilibeda and, thereafter, he went to his own house and started living there and stopped talking with her since April, 2015 and since, he has committed sexual intercourse with her, while alluring on account of marriage, therefore, he is liable to be punished. Based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex. P/2) was registered by the concerned Police Station against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and after recording the statement of the prosecutrix and others’ and, after completion of due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted 3 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 457 of IPC in connection with Crime No.16/2015 and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge has been framed against him under Sections 450 and 376(2) (n) of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents, while none was examined by him in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix was the consenting party for the alleged crime and, accordingly, the respondent has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence mentioned hereinabove and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the prosecutrix is a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence committed by the respondent, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, evidence led by the prosecutrix (PW-1), has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. Mr. Kotecha, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal 4 as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that an offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376(2)(n) of IPC has been registered against the respondent, based upon the written report (Ex.P/1) lodged by the prosecutrix on 05/05/2015. According to the alleged report, it appears that two years prior to the alleged report, the respondent, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, has developed the alleged physical relations with her and because of that, she became pregnant. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and it appears from her testimony, particularly paragraph 4 of her cross- examination that, she on her own wish went to Narayanpur with him from the village- Koilibeda and, the said fact was not disclosed to anyone. It was stated further that they got married at Temple of village- Rowghat and, it was admitted specifically, as revealed from paragraph 7 of her testimony that the alleged relation was made with her on her own wish. It appears further from her testimony that since, he has refused to accept the alleged child of him, therefore, she had lodged the report on 05/05/2015. It, thus, appears from her statement that the alleged relation was made with her on her own wish and it cannot be said that the respondent has made the alleged relation with her forcefully while alluring her on account of the marriage. 5 9. In view of above, the trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant