Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:4174-DB ) THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 27 of 2019 State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Godda ... Appellant Versus Srikant Singh, son of Naresh Singh, resident of Village Bochao, P.O. & P.S. Sanokhar, District Bhagalpur … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, APP For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Choudhary, Advocate --- Order No. 09 Dated 11th February, 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda in S.T. No. 56 of 2014 arising out of Meharma (Thakurgangti) P.S. Case No. 160 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the sole respondent has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 3. A complaint was initially instituted in which it was stated that the respondent on the pretext of marriage had established physical relationship with the complainant which ultimately resulted in her becoming pregnant which was terminated against her will. Subsequently, the respondent had refused to solemnize marriage with the complainant. The complaint case was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. based on which Meharma (Thakurgangti) P.S. Case No. 160 of 2013 was instituted u/s 366A, 376 and 313 I.P.C. 4. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 56 of 2014. 5. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 376, 366 and 313 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Page|1 6. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. 7. The statement of the respondent was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he had denied his complicity in the commission of the offence. 8. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed in S.T. No. 56 of 2014 had acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him. 9. Submission has been advanced by the learned APP for the appellant that the evidence of the victim who has been examined as PW-7 clearly reveals the manner in which the respondent on the pretext of marriage had induced her to establish physical relationship with her and subsequently refused to solemnize marriage after forcibly getting her pregnancy terminated. Learned counsel also submits that the evidence of the other witnesses are also supportive of the evidence of PW-7, but the learned trial court had committed an illegality in acquitting the respondent from the charges levelled against him. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent/ accused has submitted that the evidence of PW-7 seems to have developed her initial narrative made in the complaint petition and the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved such story. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court record. 12. Although the prosecution has examined as many as nine charge sheet witnesses, but the perusal of the evidence of the witnesses clearly reveals that none of the said witnesses have categorically stated about having any knowledge with respect to the act of the respondent in establishing physical relationship with the complainant on the pretext of marriage or the fact that the complainant became pregnant and such pregnancy was terminated forcibly by the respondent. 13. The star witness of the case is PW-7 who happens to be the complainant, but in her evidence she has introduced a new story and has introduced the character of Sunaina, Neelam and Sushila who according to her had instigated the respondent to commit rape upon her. The learned Page|2 trial court has considered the fact that in the complaint petition, the complainant has given a different version quite contrary to what has been stated by her in her evidence as PW-7. 14. The evidence of PW-7 as well as the evidence of the other witnesses do not strengthen the case of the complainant against the respondent and therefore the respondent had rightly been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. We do not find any reasons to conclude otherwise and consequently we dismiss this appeal. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK 11.02.2026