1 2025:CGHC:52770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1569 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Shyamlal Suryavanshi, S/o Shri Devilal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Muhdiya, Police Station- Badod, District- Agar Shajapur (M.P.) Presently Residing At Prem Nagar Ward, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For State/Petitioner : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. This petition has been preferred by the State/Petitioner under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking leave to question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 03/02/2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Kondagaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.123/2021, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.29 18:22:49 +0530 2 of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that, a report (Ex.P/3) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 01/06/2021, before the Police Station- Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) alleging therein that, on 29/05/2021, he was out of the house and his daughter, who was 16 years and 05 months old, a handicapped, was with the mother and when he returned in the evening, it was informed by his wife that, his daughter has gone somewhere else. It is alleged further that, he, thereafter, enquired about her, but, did not find her whereabouts, owing to which, he lodged the alleged report that, some unknown person while alluring her has took her somewhere else and, based upon the alleged information, an offence punishable under Section 363 IPC was registered against an unknown person. 3. During the investigation, his daughter was recovered from the possession of the respondent at village - Jampadar Para (Kondagaon) on 22/09/2021 in presence of her father and cousin, namely, Virendra and, after her recovery, her statement (Ex.P/17) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of IPC and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, he was charged under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and, the charge so framed was denied by him and, claimed to be tried. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the 3 prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, arrived at a conclusion that, she was not only the major at the time of the occurrence of the incident but, had gone with the respondent on her own and, accordingly, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/State submits that, the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the prosecutrix has gone along with the respondent on her own wish, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and, it reveals from her statement that, she was taken by the respondent on the pretext of marriage to Kondagaon and from there, they went to Raipur and, it appears further that, she went along with the respondent from Raipur to Indore by bus, where they stayed for 03 days and, thereafter, she returned along with the respondent to Kondagaon and, during this period, the respondent has committed sexual intercourse with her. It appears further from para 8 of her cross-examination that, she had gone with the respondent on her own wish and, was not taken by him forcefully. Further of her testimony would reveal the fact that, when the physical relation was being made upon her by the respondent, she, however, raised no objection. It is to be seen further that, when she was recovered from the possession of 4 the respondent on 22/09/2021, her statement (Ex.P/17) was recorded on 23/09/2021 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, a bare perusal of her said statement would show that, she herself has called the respondent on phone and he, thereafter, went along with her. It, thus, appears that, the prosecutrix on her own had gone along with the respondent and, the alleged physical relation was made on her wish. It is to be seen further that she was examined by Dr. Kalpana Rathore (PW-7), but, she did not find any injury on her body, nor any sign of forceful intercourse was committed upon her. Although, at the time of lodging the report (Ex.P/3) by her father, it was stated by him that, she was minor at the relevant point of time, but, a bare perusal of the Dakhil Khariz Register, marked as Ex.P/8, her date of birth was shown to be 16/06/2002. She was, thus, 18 years 11 months and 13 days old at the relevant point of time and, the trial Court, after taking note of all these materials has not erred in acquitting him for the commission of the alleged crime. 7. Consequently, the petition seeking leave to question the impugned judgment under Section 378(3) is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Prashant