1 CGHC010033892019 2026:CGHC:27914-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 75 of 2019 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • Dilip Sahu S/o Dilharan Sahu, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village- Khamhariya (Saldha), Police Station- Bemetara, District- Bemetara, (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Sh ri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 07/07/2026 1) This appeal is directed agaisnt the judgment dated 03/08/2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.05/2017, whereby, the learned Upper Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) has acquitted the Respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 506 Part-II and 376 of IPC. CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.07 17:41:43 +0530 2 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent- Dilip Sahu has been charged with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 450, 506 Part-II and 376 of IPC, on the allegation that on 19/11/2016 around 22:00 hours, the prosecutrix went to her “Kothar” for providing grass (paira) to the cows, the Respondent abruptly came and caught hold her from backside and committed sexual intercourse forcefully and fled away when her husband came, while threatening to kill, if the alleged incident is disclosed. Based upon the alleged allegation, an FIR (Ex.P-7) was lodged on 24/11/2016 against the Respondent in connection with Crime No.698/2016 and the case has been registered against him for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 450 and 506 Part-II of IPC and, after completion of usual investigation, he was charged as such. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-5 and, it appears from her statement that the Respondent on the said fateful day, i.e., 19/11/2016 around 10:00 PM, came and caught hold her from backside when she was grazing grass to the cattles at her Kothar and committed sexual intercourse with her. It appears further from her testimony that when her husband came near the ‘Kothar’ in order to attend the call of nature, the Respondent fled away immediately and, she then informed the alleged incident to her mother-in-law and father-in-law. Further of her testimony would reveal the fact that her house is covered from all the four corners and from para 15 of her testimony, it reveals that her husband has seen her with the accused/Respondent suddenly when he got up for attending the call of nature and, from paragraphs 16 3 and 20, it was stated by her that she received the injury on her hand and denied the fact that she was not received any injuries. Although, it was alleged, as such, but her statement is, however, not found to be supported by others, particularly, her husband and Dr. Anamika Minz (PW-8), who examined her. 4) According to her husband (PW-7), it appears that he has seen his wife in objectionable position with the Respondent and caught them red handed when he got up in the night in order to attend the call of nature and when he shouted, then only, the Respondent had fled away. Insofar as the statement of Dr. Anamika Minz (PW-8), who examined her medically, is concerned, it appears that upon her examination, she did not get any kind of injuries on her body, though, it was alleged by the prosecutrix, as revealed from her testimony, that because of the alleged incident, she sustained certain injuries. Her statement is, therefore, not found to be corroborated either by her husband, who had seen the incident, or by the said Doctor (PW- 8). 5) Pertinently to be noted here further, as revealed from the statement of her mother-in-law (PW-6), that in a ‘Panchayat meeting’ convened regarding the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was found to be guilty, owing to which, the penalty was imposed upon her and the family members and, it appears further that the alleged report (Ex. P-7) was lodged on 24/11/2016 only after the said meeting was convened, with regard to the incident occurred on 19/11/2016 and no plausible explanation to this effect has been offered as to why the 4 report was lodged, much after passing of the considerable period of 5-6 days. 6) In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in arriving at a conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party with regard to the alleged incident while acquitting the Respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Chandrakant