Chattisgarh High Court
Seema Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:40353-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed
by ARPAN
ARPAN
SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.08.12
17:22:41
+0530
ACQA No. 8 of 2016
XYZ.....
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin),
District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Bhupesh Netam S/o Ramchandra Netam Aged About 31 Years R/o Village
Khairi P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate appears along
with Ms. Anjana Banjare, Advocate.
For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vinay Dubey, Advocate.
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board.
12.08.2025
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix (The appellant is
treated as XYZ/ prosecutrix in order to hidden her identity), questioning
the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.10.2015, passed by
the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Special
Sessions Case No.35/2015, whereby, the Respondent No.2-Bhupesh
Netam has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under
Section 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO ACT).
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent No.2-
Bhupesh Netam has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence
punishable under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, a report (Ex.P/1) was
lodged by the prosecutrix on 21.05.2015, alleging inter alia, that she is
familiar with the said respondent, who oftenly used to come to her
house for the last many years and, on the pretext of marriage, he made
the physical relations with her, owing to which, she became pregnant
and thereafter, he refused to marry with her and, instead solemnized
the marriage to someone else on 1st May 2015. It appears further from
her said report, that she informed the alleged incident to her friend,
namely, Pragati Verma as well as to her sister-in-law (Bhabhi).
3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was
examined as PW/2, however, a bare perusal of her testimony would
show that the alleged physical relation, as was alleged by her, was not
made by him, nor the alleged incident was disclosed by her to her said
friend and the sister-in-law (Bhabi). Further of her testimony would
show that she was not pressurized by him to make such a relation on
the pretext of the marriage, and it appears further that she lodged the
report only when he refused to marry with her. Her sister-in-law
(Bhabhi), who was examined as PW/3, has also not supported her
version by saying that she was not aware that what happened with her
(PW/2). In view thereof, the trial Court has not committed any illegality
in acquitting the Respondent No.2-Bhupesh Netam from the
commission of the alleged crime.
4. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Arpan
