1 CGHC010108212018 2026:CGHC:30592-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 66 of 2018 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Nandghat, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant versus • Krishna Banjare S/o Roopchand Banjare, Aged About 35 Years, Caste- Satnami, R/o Mehna, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : None. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Sh ri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 20/07/2026 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19/07/2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.43/2016, whereby, the learned Upper Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) has acquitted the Respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC. CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.20 17:46:35 +0530 2 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent- Krishna Banjare has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC, based upon the report (Ex.P-1) lodged by the prosecutrix on 09/01/2016, wherein, it was alleged that on 03/01/2016 around 03:00 PM, when she was alone at home, the Respondent entered into her house and forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her and, she was threatened to be killed by him while pressing her mouth when she started shouting and, alleged further that she narrated the incident to her husband when he came in the evening, who is mentally weak, but he said nothing and, on the next day, she informed to the Sarpanch of the village and based upon his advice, she lodged the report and, based upon the alleged allegations, he was charged as such. 3) Although, the alleged allegation was made by the prosecutrix, but, in her (PW-1) statement, it appears that when the alleged act was done by him, she has neither shouted, nor was even threatened by him, nor her mouth was pressed by him, as alleged in her report (Ex.P-1). 4) It is to be seen further that when she was confronted to her statement (Ex.D-1), marked as ‘A’ to ‘A’ and ‘B’ to ‘B’, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein, it was stated that, “when she started shouting, her mouth was pressed by him while threatening to kill” and, “none have heard her noise when she started shouting”, respectively, but, she has denied to state as such. There are, thus, 3 material omissions in her statement to this effect and, rather she was found to have kept silent during the course of the alleged incident, as reflected from para 15 of her statement. In view thereof, it cannot be said that at the time of commission of the alleged incident, she has either shouted or her mouth was pressed by him while threatening to kill. 5) Pertinently to be noted here further that the alleged incident was occurred on 03/01/2016, but the report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by her only on 09/01/2016 explaining the reasons that she was threatened to be killed by him. However, the alleged of her explanation is not found to be genuine in view of her aforesaid evidence. She is, thus, found to be a consenting party for the alleged relations with him. 6) In view of the above, we are of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the Respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Chandrakant 4