Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:1417-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 109 of 2024 Victim ... … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Lalla Chaubey @ Shailjit Sanat, S/o Dabu Chaubey @ Sujit Kumar Chaubey, R/o Rajapara, P.O.- Rajapara, P.S.- Pakur (T), District- Pakur ... … Respondents --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant : Mrs. Abha Verma, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. --------- 02/20.01.2026 Heard Mrs. Abha Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed on 13.08.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in S.T. No. 03 of 2023, arising out of Pakur (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 17/2022, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 herein has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 3. The prosecution case reveals that the appellant/ victim was working in the house of Dabu Choubey as a maidservant since long. It has been alleged that the son of Dabu Choubey always used to sexually harass her despite her protest. It has been alleged that on 15.05.2022 when she had gone for work there was no one in the house save and except the respondent no. 2 who had subjected her to rape and after committing such atrocious act had assured to solemnize marriage with her. Such relationship according to the prosecution case continued and when the respondent no. 2 had refused to solemnize marriage the First Information Report was instituted. 4. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:1417-DB ) merely considered some minor contradictions while acquitting the respondent no. 2. It has further been submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report has been echoed by the victim in her evidence as P.W.1, from which, it reveals that on the assurance of marriage the victim was subjected to rape but after having fulfilled his desires the respondent no. 2 had refused to adhere to his commitment and such would definitely attract an offence of rape. 5. It appears that the evidence of P.W.1 has been disbelieved by the learned trial court as the same appears to be improbable and absurd. It also appears that there has been a considerable delay in institution of the First Information Report and no plausible explanation has been submitted by the appellant with regard to such delay. The initial act of physical intimacy as depicted by P.W.1 seems to have been followed up by similar acts several times by the respondent no. 2 but despite the appellant as per her own version being aggrieved with the initial act of physical relationship had continued to work in the said household which further more demolishes the case of the prosecution. 6. Although seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and P.W.4 as well as P.W.7 have not stated anything which would solidify the case of the appellant. The learned trial court has rightly considered the evidence of P.W.1 which emanates an improbable story and since there are no other evidence on record and the evidence of the prosecutrix being considered so the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent no. 2 from the charges levelled against him. 7. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove do not intend to interfere in the Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:1417-DB ) impugned judgment of acquittal passed on 13.08.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in S.T. No. 03 of 2023, arising out of Pakur (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 17/2022 and consequently we dismiss this appeal. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated, the 20th January, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 28 / 01 /2026