1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 239 of 2023 Judgment Reserved on 30.10.2025 Judgment Delivered on 10.11.2025 • ABC (Victim) ...Appellant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Geedam, District Dantewada (C.G.) 2. Nemendra Nagwanshi S/o Shri Soorajram Nagwanshi Aged About 32 Years R/o Hitkesa, P.S. Gurur District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Heard on admission. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/victim arises out of the judgment dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South Bastar, Dantewada, C.G. in Sessions Case No.99/2022, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 herein of the charge under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of Indian Penal Code. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.11.10 18:01:26 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.10.2022, the victim, aged about 28 years, lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) alleging that in January, 2019, she came in contact with accused/respondent No.2 through a matrimonial group and thereafter, they started meeting and visiting different places together. It is further alleged that in April, 2019, accused/respondent No.2 called her to village Geedam where they stayed together for fifteen days and established physical relations. It is also alleged that on the false pretext of marriage, accused/respondent No.2 established physical relations with her on several occasions from 2019 to 2022 and when she asked him to marry her, he refused. On the basis of written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) has been registered against the respondent No.2. 3. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-7 and after obtaining consent letter vide Ex.P-4, victim was sent for medical examination whereupon PW-6 Dr. M.S. examined her and did not notice any sign of injury over the body of the victim either internally or externally and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-10. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-respondent No.2 before the concerned trial Court under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of IPC. Accused-respondent No.2 abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 herein of said charges leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/victim would submit that although the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 of the 3 offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of IPC, but she confines her argument only to the acquittal under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and does not wish to press the appeal in respect of another charge i.e. under Section 313 of IPC. She would further submit that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 herein of charge under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC by recording perverse findings. She would further submit that there is ample evidence on record to show that on the false pretext of marriage, respondent No.2/accused established physical relations with the victim on several occasions and later refused to marry her and despite the availability of sufficient evidence on record, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matters of State of U.P. vs Pappu Alias Yunus and Another reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594 and Arvind Singh vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 11 SCC 1. 7. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of accused/respondent No.2, would support the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/victim. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether 4 the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. Now the question is whether the respondent No.2 is the author of the crime in question? 11. Victim/PW-1 in her deposition has stated that in March, 2019, she came in contact with accused/respondent No.2 and thereafter, they started visiting and roaming around various places and temples. She has further stated that in April, 2019, accused/respondent No.2 called her to village Geedam where they stayed together for about fifteen days and established physical relations. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had voluntarily consented to the physical relations and that accused/respondent No.2 had not forced her. She further admitted that her physical relations with accused/respondent No.2 from the year 2019 to 2022 were consensual. 12. Thus, from perusal of the evidence of the victim/PW-1, who was admittedly a major lady, it appears that there was a love affair between the victim and respondent No.2. She was a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence and used to stay and travel with respondent No.2 at different places on her own free will. Further, PW-2 mother of the victim and PW-3 brother of the victim, have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, PW-7 Saraswati Sethiya, Investigating Officer, also admitted that victim and accused/respondent No.2 had been in a love relationship since 2019, but the victim lodged the report only on 20.05.2022 i.e. after about three years and no explanation for such delay 5 has been mentioned in the First Information Report (Ex.P-2). In addition, PW-6 Dr. M.S., who medically examined the victim, did not notice any sign of injury over the body of the victim either internally or externally. Further, the evidence on record does not show that respondent No.2 had established physical relations with the victim on the false pretext of marriage. 13. In view of such circumstances, and particularly in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, attributing the respondent No.2 for the commission of the alleged crime, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent No.2 from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 14. Having gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant and the principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgments, being distinguishable on facts, are of no help to the appellant. 15. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/victim against the acquittal of accused/respondent No.2 is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh