1 2026:CGHC:22196-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 270 of 2023 1 – XYZ, ... Appellant/Complainant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer of Police Station AJAK Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG), 2 - Kabir @ Rajju @ Vijayshankar Pant, S/o Charandas Pant, Aged About 41 Years, Village Kargikhurd, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (CG) Present Address 12th Batalian Ramanujganj, Police Station Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) ---- Respondents For Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 12.05.2026 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/victim under Section 14-A the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the legality and propriety of the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.05.12 18:21:42 +0530 2 judgment dated 24.07.2023 passed by the Special Judge (under SC/ST Act), Balrampur Place Ramanujganj (CG) in Special Sessions Trial (Atrocities) No.40/2019 (Crime No.21/2019), whereby, the respondent No.2- Kabir @ Rajju @ Vijayshankar Pant, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 312 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the said respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the alleged offence, on the allegations made by the victim in her written report (Ex.P-1), dated, 16.07.2019, wherein, it was alleged that she came in contact with the said respondent in the year 2010, who assured her to marry and, based upon the alleged assurance, he made physical relations with her on various occasions, owing to which, she became pregnant, but the respondent has got her abortion deceitfully by administering some medicine and, thereafter again used to make physical relations with her. It is alleged further that in the year 2014, he kept her in his house at village – Kargikhurd for a period of 10 days and has made continuous physical relations with her, owing to which, she again got pregnant, but he forcefully got her abortion and, during this period, it was revealed to her that some talks are going on for his marriage with someone else, who, however, denied the said fact when she enquired about it, which led to the quarrel with him. It is alleged further that recently she came to know that he solemnized the marriage with someone else. It is alleged further that on the pretext of marriage, he made physical relations with her continuously since 3 2010 and got her abortion thrice. 3. Although, it was alleged by her that because of the alleged assurance, the said respondent has made physical relations with her, owing to which, she became pregnant and he got the child aborted thrice, but from perusal of her (PW-1) statement would, however, reveal the fact that her relation was made continuously since 2010 and, the alleged report was lodged only on 16.07.2019 when she came to know that the said respondent has got married with someone else. However, in order to establish the said fact, no material has been placed on record that when he got married with someone else. That apart, it reveals further from para 22 of her testimony that she did not get done any test of her pregnancy, nor any material has been placed on record that she was aborted thrice deceitfully by the said respondent, as alleged in her report (Ex.P-1). 4. It is to be seen further that, though, it was alleged by her that the said respondent has made the alleged physical relations on the pretext of marriage, but, it however, reveals from para 24 of her testimony that she was aware when the alleged physical relation was made with her for the first time that there was no guarantee that he would marry her . 5. In view of the aforesaid admission, it is, therefore, difficult to hold that the alleged relation was made by him, while making a false assurance of marrying her and, the trial Court, after taking note of those materials has, therefore, not committed any illegality in holding 4 that she was one of the consenting party for the alleged relation while acquitting him for the commission of the alleged crime. 6. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Judge sunita