1 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 25 of 2026 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11270-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 25 of 2026 “X” ... Appellant -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. Devmangal Singh, son of Luruk Singh, resident of Village: Kuchila, Sannan Tola, PO and PS: Chipadohar, District: Latehar. …Respondents CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. … 05/15.04.2026 Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Spl.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2024, passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in connection with Sessions Case No. 30/2019, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no.2 has been acquitted from the charge levelled against him under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant/ complainant had filed a complaint case in which it has been alleged that the respondent no.2 on the pretext of marriage had sexually exploited the complainant from the year 2008 till 19.02.2017 and whenever the complainant became pregnant, she was forcibly administered medicine resulting in termination of pregnancy. 4. The said complaint case was sent to the police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was registered as Chipadohar P.S. Case No. 31/2017 under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 30/2019. Charge was framed against the respondent no.2 under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and 2 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 25 of 2026 explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in course of trial has examined eight witnesses and had also got exhibited the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant as well as the medical report. 6. The learned trial Court on consideration of the evidence of the witnesses has acquitted the respondent no.2 from the charge levelled against him which has prompted the informant to prefer the present appeal. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned senior counsel for the informant/ appellant that the evidence of the victim as PW-1 clearly demonstrates the manner in which PW-1 was subjected to rape by the respondent no.2. PW-1 had reported the commission of rape earlier done by the respondent no.2 before the police but no action had been taken in registering a case. The learned trial Court has also not considered the evidence of the other witnesses and on vague and unsubstantiated grounds has acquitted the respondent no.2. 8. PW-1 is the informant/ appellant who has stated about being sexually exploited by the respondent no.2 from the year 2008 to 2017. The inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report has not at all been explained by PW-1. The statement that she had approached the police station earlier for redressal of her grievance appears to be a feeble attempt made by the informant to explain the delay since no documents suggestive of any approach made by the PW-1 has been brought on record. PW-1 has stated about the fetus having been terminated on several occasions but here also there is a total dearth of documentary evidence. In another case filed by the informant in Chipadohar P.S. Case No. 12/2019 she had described the respondent no.2 as her husband. She has also stated in her evidence that the respondent no.2 had solemnized marriage with her in a temple. If the informant has described the respondent no.2 as her husband the allegations leading to institution of the present case as a natural collorary would not stand. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution especially that of PW-1 and by enumerating appropriate reasons has acquitted the respondent no.2 from the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. There has indeed been a dearth of evidence in the case of the prosecution and considering the inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report and the contradictions emerging from the evidence of PW-1, we come to the conclusion that the learned trial Court was justified in recording a judgment 3 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 25 of 2026 of acquittal and having found no reason to conclude otherwise, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated: 15.04.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 18.04.2026