1 2026:CGHC:16794-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.462 of 2025 XYZ (Details are enclosed in a sealed envelope) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Bhanpuri, District - Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Nandulal Kashyap S/o Tulsiram Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Burungpal, Narmundapara, Police Station - Parpa, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Santosh Bharat, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 13/04/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29/10/2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bastar, Place- Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.69/2022, whereby, the respondent No.2-Nandulal Kashyap has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 Part-II of IPC. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.04.15 10:59:07 +0530 2 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that an FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station-Frejarpur-Parpa, District Bastar, alleging inter alia, that the respondent No.2, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, has made physical relations with her on 12/09/2019 and made the alleged relations with her continuously on the said pretext, but has refused to marry with her in the meeting held on 06/05/2022. It is alleged further that she was threatened to be killed, if she disclose the alleged incident to anyone else. Based upon such an allegation, the respondent No.2 has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2, but from a bare perusal of her testimony, particularly para 16, it appears that she was known very well that the respondent No.2 was not only married, but was having children as well and was, therefore, cannot marry with her. In view of such circumstances, it cannot be said that she was exploited physically by him falsely, as alleged by her. 4) It is to be seen further that even upon the refusal by him to marry with her in the meeting, held on 06/05/2022, no report was lodged immediately thereafter and, the alleged report (Ex.P-2) was lodged only on 27/05/2022 without explaining any probable explanation for it, nor any injury was detected from her body, as revealed from the statement of Dr.(Smt.) Shivangi Tiwari (PW-1). 5) In view of the aforesaid background, it is, thus, evident that the prosecutrix was a consenting party with regard to the alleged 3 relations and, the trial Court after taking note of those materials, has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent No.2 from the commission of the alleged crime. 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 Tumane