1

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Acquittal Appeal No. 72 of 2015

1. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station, Podi,
District Korea, CG
—- Appellant
Versus
1. Rakesh Kumar Sahu son of Nandlal Sahu, aged about 24
years, R/o Ujiyarpur, Police Station Podi, District Korea,
CG
—- Respondent

For Appellant/State: Shri Adil Minhaj, PL
For Respondent/accused: Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Adv.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker
Hon’ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
Judgment On Board by Pritinker Diwaker, J
14/09/2018
This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment

dated 08.08.2014 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Korea

(Baikunthpur) in Special Sessions Trial No. 16/2014 acquitting the

accused/respondent of the charge under Sections 376 IPC and 3

(1) (B-ii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”).

2. Facts

of the case in brief are that on 18.12.2013 FIR (Ex.P-5)

was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-2) alleging that on 23.10.2013

at about 8 AM when she was returning from the house of her

maternal grandmother, respondent/accused met her on the way

and asked her to accompany him assuring of keeping her as his

wife. It is alleged that she accompanied as asked for and stayed in

his house for a period of two months and during this period they
2

both had phyical relations but ultimately he did not keep of his

promise of marriage. On 11.12.2013 she left his house for

Pratappur and when she was returning from there on 17.12.2013,

she met her mother and then the report was lodged. Based on this

report, offences under Sections 376 IPC and 3 (1) (xii) of the Special

Act were registered against the respondent/accused. Court below

then framed the charge against the respondent/accused

accordingly.

3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution has

examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the

accused/respondent has also been recorded under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations

made against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in

the case.

4. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on

record the Court below has acquitted the accused/respondent of

the charges levelled against him and therefore, the State has

preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that the Court below

has committed an error of law in acquitting the respondent/accused

of the charges levelled against him by ignoring the evidence

adduced by the prosecution.

6. Counsel for the respondent/accused however supports the

judgment impugned and submits that while recording the finding of

acquittal, the Court below has taken note of the evidence on record

in proper perspective and there is no infirmity in the same

warranting interference by this Court.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on
3

record.

8. Prosecutrix (PW-2) has stated that on the date of incident

when she alone was returning from the house of her maternal

grandmother, accused/respondent met her near Darritola station

and asked to accompany him. When she first refused to

accompany, respondent/accused told to keep her as his wife and

beleving his say, she proceeded with him to his house. On that

evening her mother came to the house of the accused/respondent

to take her back but he did not let her go. She is stated to have

stayed in the house of accused/respondent for about a week and

during this period physical relations were made between the two.

Here there are contradictions between the versions of the

prosecutrix narrated in the FIR as well as in the Court because in

the FIR she has disclosed that she remained with the accused for

two months but in the Court she has stated that she stayed with

him for about a week. According to her, one morning she got up

early and left the house of the respondent/accused on the pretext

of going for answering the call of natutre. Thereafter, she went to

the police station along with her mother and lodged the report.

Manmohan (PW-1) father of the prosecutrix has stated that he was

informed by his wife that as the accused/respondent had

threatened the prosecutrix, she started living with him. According

to him, the prosecutrix lived in the house of the

respondent/accused for about two months. Dr. Madhurima Painkra

(PW-3) is the witness who medically examined the prosecutrix and

gave her report Ex. P-7 stating that she did not notice any internal

or external injury on her and that she was habitual to sexual

intercourse.

9. Material available on record including the evidence of the
4

prosecutrix (PW-2) goes to show that the prosecutrix – a major lady

aged about 19 years at the relevant time was a consenting party to

the act of the respondent/accused. Had it not been so, there was

ample opportunity for her of raising hue and cry and getting rid of

the respondent/accused on the very first day. However, instead of

doing that, she kept quiet for a period of two months and submitted

herself to him for physical relations, and that when he did not

marry her as promised, she chose to lodge the report. Being a

major lady at that time she should have thought over the

consequences before accompanying the accused, staying with him

for a sufficient long time and permitting him of making physical

relations with her. Medical evidence also does not support the case

of the prosecution. Court below thus appears to have been fully

justified in recording the finding of acquittal on the basis of

evidence before it. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment

awarding acquittal in favour of the respondent/accused. Even

otherwise, as regards appeal against the finding of acquittal, it is a

settled position of law that if on the basis of material on record two

views can be drawn then the preference has to be given to the one

favouring the accused.

10. On viewing the evidence adduced by the parties and being

conscious to the existing legal position referred to above, this Court

finds no substance in the appeal and accordingly the same is

dismissed. Judgment impugned is affirmed.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Pritinker Diwaker) (Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge Judge

Jyotishi