1 2025:CGHC:59183-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 288 of 2024 1 - X, Nil ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG) 2 - Laxmi Prasad @ Bagaidu Yadav S/o Anwadhi Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Khaira, Jairamnagar, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). ---- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Rajani Soren, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 05.12.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and 2 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Additional Charge- Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Trial No.193/2021, whereby, the respondent No.2- Laxmi Prasad @ Bagaidu Yadav, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 2. The respondent has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC on the allegation that he committed sexual intercourse forcefully with his aunt, the prosecutrix, on 29.01.2021 around 09.00 pm. 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (unexibited) dated 12.02.2021 was lodged by the prosecutrix, a 45 years old, against her nephew (Bhanja), a 30 years old, on 12.02.2021 before the Police Station- Masturi, alleging inter alia that, on the said fateful day, when she went to her relative’s house at village- Khaira, for attending the ‘Chhatti ceremony’, the respondent came and took her to the Badi and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-9) was registered against him for the commission of the alleged crime. 4. Perusal of the alleged report, would, however, show that at the relevant point of time, her mother-in-law, namely, Dashmat Bai and sister-in-law, namely, Khorbaharin were present, who slapped him with the aid of slipper, but when she (prosecutrix) was examined before the Court as PW-1, it was, however, stated that the alleged incident was disclosed by her to her mother-in-law – Dashmat Bai on phone, that too, 03 days 3 after the occurrence of the alleged incident. Contrarily, it reveals from her testimony that the alleged incident was disclosed by her to one Mona, who was, however, not examined. Further of her testimony would reveal the fact that on the said fateful day, the respondent was slapped by her sister-in-law (Nanad), namely, Khorbaharin with the aid of slipper, but she was, however, not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. 5. Pertinently, to be noted here further, as reflected from her (PW-1) testimony as well as her statement (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that, at the time of commission of the alleged crime, she was threatened by the respondent with the aid of weapon like-pistol, but the alleged fact was, however, not disclosed in her alleged report. There is, thus, material disparity in her entire version. Her statement, therefore, cannot be relied upon that she was raped by the respondent- Laxmi Prasad @ Bagaidu Yadav on the said fateful day, as alleged by the prosecution. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in this appeal, which, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.12.05 17:56:01 +0530 4