1 2026:CGHC:24907-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 237 of 2024 1 - ABC (Victim) Nil ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (CG). 2 - Vikas Soni S/o Late Shri Ramkishan Soni, Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 716, Trimurti Chawk, Sundar Nagar, Thana D.D. Nagar, Raipur (CG) Other Address House No. 717, Trimurti, Chawk, Sundar Nagar, Thana D.D. Nagar, Raipur (CG). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Panda, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Himanshu Thakur, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate DB:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 19/06/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/victim under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.06.22 10:37:48 +0530 2 legality and propriety of the judgment dated 11/12/2023, passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.43/2022, whereby, the respondent No.2- Vikas Soni, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(k)(n) and 506 Part-II 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 on 11/06/2022, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the appellant/victim before the In-charge Police Station, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, alleging inter alia, that the respondent No.2- Vikas Soni, on the pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse with her and succeeded to got her abortion forcefully and abused her while using filthy words upon knowing the fact that she belongs to a ‘Scheduled Caste’ Community. It is alleged by her in the said complaint that respondent No.2- Vikas Soni, who was a married man and was aware that she is living separately from her husband along with her two daughters, stated that his relation is not well with his wife and wanted to marry her and, thereafter started meeting her. Further of her allegation is that on 17th October, 2021, he has shown his house situated at Agroha Colony, Raipur, where while alluring her on the pretext of marriage had committed sexual intercourse with her and has made the alleged relations up to 11th March, 2022, owing to which, she became pregnant 3 and when she insisted for solemnization of the marriage, he however, refused and started pressurizing her to get the child aborted and when she refused, he started abusing her while using filthy words and threatened to kill. Based upon the alleged allegations, he was charge-sheeted for the offence mentioned herein-above. 3. Perusal of the record would, however, reveal the fact that much prior to lodging of the alleged report (Ex.P-1), a report (Ex.D-9) dated 14/04/2022 and 18/04/2022 (Ex.D-10) was lodged by her before the concerned Police Station against the respondent- Vikas Soni, alleging therein, that she was exploited physically by him while alluring her on the pretext of marriage. It appears further that immediately after lodging the alleged reports (Exs. D-9 and D-10), a compromise (Ex. D-7) was taken place between them on 19/04/2022, owing to which, no action was taken based upon her alleged reports (Ex.D-9 and Ex.D-10). 4. Pertinently, to be noted here further that immediately after the alleged compromise made on 19/04/2022, a report (Ex.D-1) was lodged by said respondent against her on 24/05/2022, alleging therein, that she has extracted illegally a sum of Rs.9,00,000 (Rupees Nine Lacs) from him and had demanded further a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) illegally and a legal demand notice (Ex.D-8) was also issued by him on the same day, i.e., 24/05/2022 for obtaining the vacant 4 possession of the house situated at Agroha Colony, as also of its arrears of rent, but instead of replying the alleged notice, the alleged written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the appellant/ victim against him on 11/06/2022 while alleging that he committed sexual intercourse with her on 17/10/2021 in the alleged house while alluring her on the pretext of marriage and has made the alleged relations continuously as such up to 11/03/2022, owing to which, she became pregnant and pressurizing to get it aborted and, when refused, she was then threatened to kill. Although, it was alleged as such that because of the alleged act of him, she became pregnant, but has failed to produce any document to this effect or even has consulted with a Doctor for her pregnancy, as revealed from para 57 of her testimony. In her evidence, as revealed from para 50 and 55, it was admitted by her that she was not a divorcee and was aware that the said respondent has not given divorce to his wife. In view thereof, when both are married, then it cannot be said that she was falsely assured by him to get married with her, particularly when she was a literate lady running a firm known as “Pitanshu Interior Works” and, instead, it reveals from her testimony that the alleged of her relation with him was made voluntarily as, according to para 29 of her testimony, it was deposed specifically that none could make any physical relation with her contrary to her wish while admitting further that it was made on their mutual consent. 5 5. 5 5. In view of the aforesaid background, it is thus, evident that the alleged relations were made between them voluntarily and it is not in dispute that the appellant/victim was major at the time when the alleged relation was developed and the first act of sexual intercourse between them was made on 17/10/2021 and was continued up to 11/03/2022, but throughout such a long period, she was kept completely silent about the alleged sexual assault meted out to her by the said respondent. Her alleged relation with him was, thus, consensual in nature and, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2024) 11 SCC 398, has held that where the woman knowingly maintains physical relationship for a prolonged period, then it cannot be said with certainty that it was made purely because of promise of marriage and, we are, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of his acquittal passed by the trial Court holding that the alleged relation of her with him was consensual in nature. 6. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE sunita