Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 June, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Acquittal Appeal No.147 of 2022
{Arising out of judgment of acquittal dated 5-5-2022 passed by the 1st
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara in Sessions
Trial No.6/2021}
XYZ
(Victim)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police
Station Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)
2. Ayodhya Chandrakar, S/o late Parasram Chandrakar, aged about 54
years, R/o Village Martara, Police Chowki Khandsara, Police Station &
District Bemetara (C.G.)
(Accused)
---- Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 / State:-
Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, on advance copy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.
Judgment On Board
(13/06/2022)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant / victim, on the question of admission of this acquittal
appeal.
2. This acquittal appeal preferred by the victim is directed against the
impugned judgment of acquittal dated 5-5-2022 passed by the 1st
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara in
Sessions Trial No.6/2021, by which respondent No.2 herein has been
acquitted from charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 Part-II of the
IPC.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
herein / victim, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely
unjustified in acquitting respondent No.2 herein from the charges
under the aforesaid offences by recording a finding which is perverse
to record and therefore it is liable to be set aside.
4. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant / victim and also went through the record with utmost
circumspection.
5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to two years from 2-6-
2016 and on 23-2-2016 in the tenanted house of Rakesh Makhija
situated at Sindhi Para, Bemetara, Police Station & District Bemetara,
respondent No.2 herein committed sexual intercourse with the
appellant herein / victim without her will and consent and also
threatened her to kill her and thereby committed the offence. The trial
Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on
record proceeded to acquit respondent No.2 herein by recording
following findings inter alia: -
1. The victim is major on the date of offence.
2. Case of the prosecution is not supported by medical evidence.
3. There is inordinate delay in lodging report, as the incident is of
two years prior to 2-6-2016 and FIR has been came to be
lodged on 2-6-2016.
4. There is no explanation for the alleged delay in lodging the FIR.
5. The victim is also consenting party.
6. Thus, it is quite apparent on record that the offence is committed prior
to two years from 2-6-2016 and from 23-2-2016 till the date of lodging
FIR, but FIR has been lodged on 2-6-2016 and the victim being major
there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR
which the trial Court has rightly noticed and held that it creates
suspicion on the prosecution case. It is the further case of the
prosecution that the accused on the pretext of getting her appointed
on a good post, committed sexual intercourse with her. In paragraph
3 of her statement before the Court, she has stated that the incident is
five years prior to recording of her statement before the court which
has been recorded on 29-7-2021. In paragraphs 3 & 4, she has
clearly stated that for continuous two years, the appellant repeatedly
committed sexual intercourse with her. In cross-examination
paragraph 8, she has clearly admitted that she has not complained
about the sexual intercourse made by the accused with her for last
two years and they have cordial relationship. In paragraph 15, she
has also admitted that since her husband has deserted her, therefore,
she is attracted with the appellant and made physical relationship with
him.
7. The trial Court after taking into consideration the inordinate delay in
lodging FIR and further considering the statement of the victim who
appears to be a consenting party and having sexual intercourse with
the accused / respondent No.2 for more than two years did not report
the matter to the police, held that the conduct of the victim raises
serious doubt on the prosecution case. As such, taking into
consideration the ordinate delay in lodging FIR and further taking into
consideration that the victim is major and consenting party, in our
considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent
No.2 herein from the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 Part-II
of the IPC. We do not find any good case for interference in this
acquittal appeal as there is a very limited scope of interference in the
acquittal appeal and thus, we do not consider it a fit case for admitting
the acquittal appeal. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed
summarily at the admission stage without notice to the other side.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Soma
