1 2026:CGHC:5470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 527 of 2013 1 - Suresh Shori, S/o Jaisingh Shori, Aged About 22 Years, Vanrakshak, Van Mandal, Utpadan, Madhya Bastar, R/o Vill. Kungarpal, Post & P.S. Bhanpuri, Civil & Revenue Distt. Bastar C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Kesahv Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) /State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 31/01/2026 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2013 passed by the learned II 2 Additional Sessions Judge (Earmark Court), Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 1/2013, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376 of IPC R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 5 years 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (P.W.-3) and the accused belong to the same community. The prosecutrix is a resident of village Mudagaon, had studied up to Class XII, and was engaged in tutoring children at village Sargipal. The accused was posted as a Forest Guard at village Kugarpal. During the course of time, the prosecutrix came into contact with the accused, and acquaintance between them developed into a love relationship. The accused used to take the prosecutrix on his motorcycle on several occasions. On 05.05.2012, the accused took the prosecutrix to village Kugarpal, where he established physical relations with her by representing that he had accepted her as his wife. Believing the assurance of marriage given by the accused, the prosecutrix consented to sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the physical relationship between them continued for some time. When the prosecutrix insisted upon marriage, the accused 3 kept postponing the same, leading to disputes between them. Subsequently, an application was submitted before the Women’s Cell, pursuant to which both parties were summoned. In the said proceedings, the accused gave a written assurance that he would marry the prosecutrix in accordance with social customs. Despite such assurance, the accused kept the prosecutrix with him at village Kugarpal for about five months but failed to solemnize the marriage. Thereafter, on 29.10.2012, the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Bhanpuri, on the basis of which a First Information Report (Ex. P-4) was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, consent letters for medical examination of the prosecutrix were obtained, and a consent panchnama (Ex. P-9) was prepared. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination, where she was examined by Dr. Sarita Mahobia (P.W.-9), who conducted a gynecological examination and issued a medical report (Ex. P-15). As per the report, no recent signs of sexual intercourse were found and the prosecutrix was stated to be habituated to sexual intercourse. During investigation, a spot map was prepared. The motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-17/KB-8154, along with its relevant documents, was seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of witnesses. A sealed slide was collected from the hospital by Woman Head Constable Satyavati, and a seizure memo was prepared. The accused was arrested and an arrest panchnama (Ex. P-11) was drawn. Intimation of 4 arrest was duly sent to the family members of the accused vide Ex. P-13 and to his department vide Ex. P-12. Statements of the prosecutrix (P.W.-3) and other witnesses, namely Lekheshwar Baghel (P.W.-1), Ghanshyam Kashyap (P.W.-5), Soni Kashyap (P.W.-4), Anil Baghel (P.W.-6), Muralidhar Kashyap (P.W.-7), and others were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 29.12.2012 and subsequently, by order dated 03.11.2013, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur. Accordingly, the present case is being tried by this Court. The learned trial Court framed a charge against the appellant under Section 376 of IPC, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is contrary to law and evidence on record. The prosecutrix (P.W.-3) was a major and educated woman, and the material on record clearly establishes that the relationship between the parties was consensual. The testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from material inconsistencies and exaggerations and is further weakened by her own admission that she initially did not lodge any complaint against the appellant and had implicated another person. The medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case and no independent witness supports the allegation of rape. The findings of the learned Trial Court are based on conjectures and presumptions, rendering the conviction unsustainable. Without prejudice, it is further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the prosecutrix have lawfully married and are living together with their two children, as evidenced by the marriage certificate filed on 05.12.2021. In view of the settled law and the subsequent developments, the conviction and sentence deserve to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s judgment dated 09.10.2025 passed in CRA No. 386 of 2022 in the matter of Rupesh Kumar Puri Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment of conviction has been passed after proper appreciation of the oral 6 and documentary evidence available on record and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on evidence and settled principles of law and call for no interference. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is evident from the record of the learned trial Court that a charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the appellant and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the said offence. 9. Prosecutrix (P.W.-3) stated that in the year 2011 she came into contact with the accused and they used to converse over telephone and gradually developed friendship, which later turned into a mutual liking. The accused used to visit her at Jagdalpur as well as at the place where she was teaching. Subsequently, the accused introduced the prosecutrix to his family members, took her to his house, and discussed the prospect of marriage with her. The prosecutrix further stated that she stayed at the house of the accused at Bhanpuri for about four to five days, after which she returned to her school at village Sargipal. She further deposed that thereafter the accused took her to his village Kungarpal, where physical relations were established between them. She 7 stated that she had stayed there with the accused for about six months. According to her, during this period the accused kept her there but did not make proper arrangements for her maintenance, as he mostly resided at Bhanpuri. She further stated that the accused used to visit her as and when he wished, stay with her, and establish physical relations. She deposed that she had asked the accused to marry her prior to entering into such relations, but he would often return in an intoxicated condition and assault her. She further stated that thereafter he continued to have physical relations with her. She further stated that subsequently the accused refused to marry her, thereafter, she lodged the FIR (Ex.P/4) against the appellant. During her cross-examination, she admitted that she had been on friendly terms with the accused since the year 2011 and that the accused had never threatened her. In para 27, she stated that, “ यह सह ह कि आरो पी  ई शपीथ-पी्ቔ आकि मुझे नह किय थ, मुरो  किश्स थ कि ह श रोगा। यह सह ह कि आरो पी न श स इंरो किय, ” इंसलिय मुन थन मु रिरोपी ्቏# ्ቌ# रोय । In para 28, she stated that, “ यह सह ह कि यकि आरो पी मुरो सथ ” श रो ता ता मु& रिरोपी ्቏# नह रोता । In para 29, she stated that, ” यह सह ह कि मु& पी़ቢ लिखी ह), यकि  ई ” मुझे श रोन लिए हगा ता मु& नह ूሲ गा । Further in para 31, she stated, “ यह सह ह कि ्ቌब मु& भानपीरो थन मु पीह बरो रिरोपी ्቏# रोन  लिए गाय थ, ताब आरो पी  लिखीफ रिरोपी ्቏# नह 8 रोय थ, ” मु& उस  स्ता खी सब नगा  लिखीफ रिरोपी ्቏# रोय थ । 10. Mother of the prosecutrix (P.W.-4) did not support the case of the prosecution and she stated that the accused and her daughter became acquainted, whereafter her daughter eloped with the accused. She further stated that after about three days, the accused telephoned them and asked them to take their daughter back. When they went to bring her, the accused told them to take her away, to which they replied that since he had taken her with him, he should himself return her. In her cross-examination, she admitted that her daughter, had not disclosed the nature of her relationship with the accused. 11. The cousin of the prosecutrix (P.W.-5) stated that there was a love affair between the appellant and the prosecutrix and that both of them had fled away together. In his cross-examination, he stated that in his presence, the accused had never given any assurance to marry the prosecutrix. 12. A close scrutiny of the statements of all the prosecution witnesses clearly establishes that the prosecutrix and the appellant were involved in a love affair. The prosecutrix was about 20 years of age at the relevant time, was working as a teacher, and was an educated adult. The evidence on record shows that the physical relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant, during the subsistence of their relationship, was consensual in nature. At the time of lodging the FIR, both parties had expressed their 9 willingness to marry each other. The prosecutrix herself admitted that she voluntarily accompanied the appellant and resided in his house of her own free will. There is no allegation by the prosecutrix that the physical relationship was obtained by the appellant under any misconception of fact or false promise. On the contrary, the material on record indicates that the prosecutrix willingly engaged in such relationship with the appellant over a considerable period of time. 13. In the matter of Rupesh Kumar Puri (supra), this Court held in paras 18 and 19 as under:- 18. Recently in the case of Prithivirajan Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 696), while considering similar case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under :- "6. This Court has time and again reiterated that only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape. For the offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions need to be satisfied first, the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning; second, that the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of 10 marriage. [See Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608; Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471] 7. The instant case is one of consensual relationship between the appellant and prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it does not appear from the record that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by the appellant was false to begin with. Perusal of FIR itself suggests that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the appellant due to Intervening circumstances. Consequently, the relationship ended because of which the present FIR came to be registered. Under these circumstances, letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. This cannot be permitted." 19. In another recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jothiragawan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 628), where, the accused and victim/prosecutrix were relative, the couple had sexual intercourse thrice. On 17.04.2021, they took a room in a hotel where according to the victim/prosecutrix, there was an 'abrupt and unexpected sexual intercourse, under coercion against her wish. Again on the pretext of discussing marriage. the accused called the victim/prosecutrix and she willingly accompanied him to 11 the very same hotel where they had an intercourse and thus again the victim/ prosecutrix was coerced into a sexual intercourse. After both instances the victim/prosecutrix was mentally upset but this did not prevent her from still again going to the very same hotel at the request of the accused, a third time. Thereafter he refused to solemnize their relationship by a valid marriage. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the criminal proceedings initiated against the present appellant/accused are nothing but an abuse of process of the court. This is precisely a case where the High Court should have interfered in exercise of its inherent and extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. These proceedings cannot go on." 14. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the physical relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant was consensual and continued for a considerable period. A relationship of such duration, entered into voluntarily by the prosecutrix, who accompanied the appellant to his residence of her own free will, cannot be retrospectively given the colour of rape. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of the prosecutrix 12 and arrived at erroneous findings. Consequently, the conclusions recorded by the learned Trial Court are not based on a correct appreciation of facts and law and are liable to be interfered with. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the impugned judgment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge. 16. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17.The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV