Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11319-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 36 of 2025 Victim ... … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amit Kumar Das, S/o Bisheshwar Ravidas, R/o Village- Nayakdih, P.O. & P.S.- Debri, District- Giridih ... … Respondents --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Adv. For the Resp.-State : A.P.P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Awnish Shanker, Adv. --------- Order No. 04 / Dated, the 15th April, 2026 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. as well as Mr. Awnish Shanker, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.01.2025 passed by Sri Onkar Nath Choudhary, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC, for Rape Cases, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 113/2021, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 herein has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 3. The prosecution case arises out of a complaint case instituted by the victim, in which, it has been alleged that in the year 2012 the respondent no. 2 had come to her in search of a room on rent in order to pursue his studies at Hazaribagh and prepare for competitive examinations. The complainant had agreed and gave a room on rent to the respondent no. 2. In course of stay the respondent no. 2 started getting close with the informant and expressed his love towards the informant and the respondent no. 2 also expressed his desire to marry the informant. The informant succumbed to the desires of the respondent no. 2 and agreed to marry him. It has been alleged that the respondent no. 2 on the pretext of marriage had established physical relation with the informant on numerous occasions which led to the informant getting pregnant thrice but the fetus was aborted due to the medicine administered by the respondent no. 2. The informant had given an amount of Rs. 6 lacs to the respondent no. 2 after selling a piece of land. However, despite the promise made by the respondent no. 2 he performed marriage with some other girl and when the respondent no. 2 was confronted the informant was assaulted by the respondent no. 2 and his family members. These allegations formed the subject matter of Complaint Case No. 1910/2019 which was referred to the Police under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. consequent to which Korrah P.S. Case No. 191/2019 was instituted. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by the Police after which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 113/2021. Charge was framed against the accused/respondent no. 2 u/s 376(2)(n) of the IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 (Sunita Mosammat) is the neighbor of the informant who has stated that the respondent no. 2 had started living on rent in the house of the informant. Within a year the respondent no. 2 started making forcible physical relationship with the informant and the informant used to disclose about the same to her. Whenever the informant became pregnant, she was administered medicine by the respondent no. 2. She has stated that whenever she asked the respondent no. 2 about his acts, he used to express his desire to solemnize marriage with the informant. She has further stated that the respondent no. 2 had taken an amount of Rs. 9 Lacs for business purposes and went to his village where he solemnized marriage with another girl. On hearing such news, she, the informant and others had gone to village Nalayak to the house of the respondent no. 2 but the family members of the respondent no. 2 humiliated them. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she is staying in the house of the informant for the last eight years. The informant is a married lady who stays with her husband and children. The eldest child of the informant is aged fifteen years while the youngest is aged nine years. The respondent no. 2 had come to stay in the house of the informant about 10-11 years back. The informant and her husband were staying separate in the same house much prior to the arrival of the respondent no. 2 as a tenant. The respondent no. 2 and the informant used to stay in the same room and the informant used to cook for him and also used to wash his cloths. She has deposed that she had seen the informant sleeping with the respondent no. 2. The relationship between the informant and the respondent no. 2 was never objected to by the husband or children of the informant. She has come to know that the informant had also instituted a similar type of case against her brother-in- law. 6. P.W.2 (Vishnu Dayal Prasad Mehta) is the father- in-law of the informant who has stated that the informant had given a room on rent to the respondent no. 2 and while staying an affair had developed between the informant and the respondent no. 2 and in April, 2013 the respondent no. 2 had established physical relationship with informant. In the meantime, the informant became pregnant and on one or two occasions she had aborted the fetus. When the informant insisted for marriage the respondent no. 2 resisted such offer since he did not have any job at which the informant sold her two decimals of land for Rs. 8 lacs and also took a loan of Rs. 1 lac from a moneylender and gave the amount of Rs. 9 lacs to the respondent no. 2 to either get a job or start a business. The respondent no. 2 thereafter went to his village and stopped receiving the phone calls of the informant. He has stated that on several occasions the informant had stayed in the house of the respondent no. 2 and the family members of the respondent no. 2 had also stayed in the house of the informant. When he along with some other persons went to the village of the respondent no. 2, he came to know that the respondent no. 2 has solemnized marriage elsewhere. The informant was assaulted and humiliated by the family members of the respondent no. 2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the incident took place between 2013 and 2018. It is true that the informant stayed separate from her husband and children in the same house. He had once seen the respondent no. 2 establishing physical relationship with the informant. He had objected to the informant and the respondent no. 2 staying together as wife and husband. 7. P.W.3 (Victim) has stated that in the year 2012 she was married and had children. Her husband and children used to stay separate from her. The respondent no. 2 in the year 2012 had come in search of a room on rent and she had given a room to the respondent no. 2. During the Holi festival in the year 2013 she was taken by the respondent no. 2 to a Temple where he expressed his desire to solemnize marriage with her. After 15-20 days the respondent no. 2 had forcibly established physical relationship with her and when she started crying the respondent no. 2 assured her that he will never leave her. In the meantime, she became pregnant on three occasions and each time her pregnancy was terminated. When she insisted for marriage the respondent no. 2 postponed the same since he did not have a job at which she had extended an amount of Rs. 9 lacs to the respondent no. 2 by selling a piece of land. After having money, the respondent no. 2 behaved properly for one month after which he stopped receiving her calls. When she along with some other persons went to the house of the respondent no. 2, she came to know that the respondent no. 2 has solemnized marriage elsewhere. The family members of the respondent no. 2 had assaulted her. She had stayed for long durations in the house of the respondent no. 2. In cross-examination, she has deposed that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2013. She used to keep the respondent no. 2 in her own room and after both of them got physically involved she used to wash the cloths of the respondent no. 2. It is true that she remained for five years with the respondent no. 2 in the same room as wife and husband. Her husband and in-laws did not object to such act on her part. It is also true that she had filed some criminal cases against other persons including her in-laws. She has not divorced her husband. 8. P.W.4 (Arjun Mahto) has stated that a meeting had taken place in the school in which the respondent no. 2 had disclosed that he has taken an amount of Rs. 3 lacs from the informant. The respondent no. 2 had given a cheque of Rs. 3 lacs which got dishonored. In the next meeting the respondent no. 2 had given an amount of Rs. 80 thousand and later on Rs. 2 lacs in the Police Station in his presence. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the monetary dispute between the informant and the respondent no. 2 was resolved in the meeting. 9. P.W.5 (Ranjit Kumar Linda) was posted as Sub- Inspector of Police in Korrah P.S. and he was entrusted with investigation of Korrah P.S. Case No. 191/2019. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also inspected the place of occurrence. He had also inspected the second place of occurrence which is the house of the respondent no. 2. He had recorded the statements of witnesses and had submitted charge-sheet against the respondent no. 2. He has proved the endorsement in the complaint petition which has been marked as Exhibit-P-3/P.W.5. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-P-4/P.W.5. In cross-examination, he has deposed that in course of investigation he had come to know that the informant stays separate from her husband and children. The informant had also lodged a case against her brother- in-law and his wife. 10. The statement of the respondent no. 2 was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he has denied his complicity in the commission of the offence. 11. It has been submitted by Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel for the appellant / informant that the evidence of the witnesses clearly reveal the manner in which the respondent no. 2 had forcibly established physical relationship with the appellant. The respondent no. 2 after extracting a huge amount of money from the appellant and after sexually exploiting her solemnized marriage elsewhere. These facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. 12. Mr. Awnish Shanker, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 / accused has submitted that the appellant despite being married consented to the sexual overtures of the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, no offence u/s 376(2)(n) of the IPC is made out against the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, he has rightly been acquitted from the charges leveled against him by the learned trial court. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records. 14. The respondent no. 2 was given a room in the house of the appellant but with the passage of time an emotional and physical bonding developed between them which according to the appellant shattered on account of the respondent no. 2 solemnizing marriage elsewhere thus going back on his promise to solemnize marriage with the appellant. The initial allegation which had been made by the appellant in the complaint petition is of the respondent no. 2 establishing physical relation with the appellant on the pretext of marriage and also duping the appellant of Rs. 9 lacs. However, the testimony of P.W.3 (appellant) speaks otherwise to the effect that she was already married having children prior to coming in contact with the respondent no. 2. As per the evidence of P.W.2 who is the father-in-law of the appellant, the appellant and her husband and children resided in the same premises though in separate rooms. P.W.1 who is a tenant of the appellant has stated that the appellant and the respondent no. 2 used to stay in the same room. It also appears from the evidence of the witnesses that the appellant had become pregnant a few times and each time the fetus was aborted. The relationship between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 continued for years despite the appellant being a married lady staying in her house along with her husband, children and in-laws. The appellant had consented to the sexual overtures of the respondent no. 2 and the relationship soured perhaps on account of the loan extended to the respondent no. 2 which was settled after which the complaint case was instituted. The appellant also seems to have filed cases making similar allegations against other persons. The entire gamut of allegations points to a love affair between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 which endorsed itself in frequent physical relationship and, therefore, the learned trial court was correct in acquitting the respondent no. 2 from the charges leveled against him. 15. Thus, in view of the reasonings discussed above, we do not find any occasion to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2025 passed by Sri Onkar Nath Choudhary, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC, for Rape Cases, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 113/2021, and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 16. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated, the 15th April, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 21 / 04 /2026