1 2026:CGHC:21967-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 217 of 2022 1 – ABC d/o XYZ ... Appellant (Complainant/Victim) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kabirdham, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Sakha Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Jakta Kanpa, Police Station Mungeli District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) Current R/o Azad Chowk, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : Shri Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 11/05/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 14- A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.05.12 10:47:42 +0530 2 Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.34/2021 (Crime No.22/21), whereby, the respondent No.2 has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(k)(n), 506 Part II, 493 and 313 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein-above referred to as ‘the Act, 1989’). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that respondent No.2- Krishna Kumar Sahu has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above on the allegation that on 04.05.2020, the prosecutrix has lodged the report against one Laxminarayan @ Raju Patel for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(k)(n) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 in connection with the Crime No.110/2020 and during the course of investigation of the said matter, she came into contact with respondent No.2, who informed her that since his wife is physically weak suffering from some disease such as ciklin and piles and, while narrating as such, he assured to marry with her and on the said pretext, he took her near Shivalaya Temple and got married with her on 06.07.2020 and made physical relation with her, owing to which, she became pregnant in the month of September, 2020 and, has succeeded to get it aborted. Further of her allegation in the said report would show that he had made the physical relation with her lastly on 8-9th September, 2020 and, has reiterated the alleged of her allegation in her (PW-1) statement. 3 3. Although, it was alleged by her as such, but perusal of the record would, however, reveal the fact that prior to lodging of her alleged report (Ex.P.-1) on 06.02.2021, a report (Ex.D.-3) was lodged by respondent No.2 – Krishna Kumar Sahu against her on 15.12.2020 before the Superintendent of Police, Sukma pertaining to the extortion of money from him based upon false allegation of physical relations with her and, when no action was taken on his alleged report, he was, therefore, compelled to initiate the proceedings against her under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and, based upon which, an offence punishable under Sections 384 and 386 of IPC was registered against her in connection with the Crime No.1/2021 for the extortion of money and, during trial, an agreement appears to have been executed between them on 11.01.2021, which was seized from her vide Ex.P.-7 on 23.02.2021 and, a bare perusal of the said agreement would reveal the fact that a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month was to be paid by him till she becomes competent to maintain herself. It emerged further from the record that the alleged written report (Ex.P.-1) was lodged against him on 06.02.2021 much after the lodging of the alleged report by him even without offering any explanation for it as to why it was lodged though lastly a physical relation was made by him on 8th or 9th December, 2020, though, it was tried to be explained that a report to this effect was made to the concerned Superintendent of Police on 28.12.2020 but no report as such has, however, been placed on record so as to rely upon her explanation in lodging the delayed report (Ex.P.-1). 4. Pertinently to be noted here further, as evidenced from the alleged report and evidence led by her that she was aware that the said 4 respondent was not only married but having a child also, therefore, it cannot be said that on the pretext of solemnization of marriage with her, the alleged relation was made by him. That apart, it appears from her testimony that she was initially residing along with her friends in a rented house, but when a relation was made deeply with him, she started living separately which, therefore, lead to a conclusion that she was a consenting party with regard to the alleged relation with him. 5. Moreover, although it was alleged by her that when she became pregnant in the month of September, 2020, she got aborted by the respondent, but perusal of her testimony would, however, show that the alleged fact to the concerned doctor has neither been disclosed by her, nor any document to this effect has been placed on record so as to hold that she was pregnant as such and was aborted by him. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, considering further the aforesaid report lodged by respondent No.2 against her prior to lodging of her report, vis-a-vis, of her awareness regarding the marital status of the said respondent, the trial court has , therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE JUDGE Nikita