Chattisgarh High Court
X vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 May, 2025
1
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
ARPAN
ARPAN SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.05.09
17:02:17
+0530
ACQA No. 132 of 2025
X Nil
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Dantewada, Distt.
South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.).
2 - Anil Mandavi, S/o Late Shri S.N. Mandavi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Durga Chowk, Block Colony, Ward No. 11, Police Station - Dantewada,
District - South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Pritam Singh, Advocate
For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.
D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
09/05/2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section
413 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the
legality and propriety of the Judgment dated 06.11.2024 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South Bastar
Dantewada, in Sessions Trial No. 145/2024 whereby, the
Respondent No.2- Anil Mandavi has been acquitted from the
offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/ Prosecutrix submits
that on the basis of false assurance of marriage, the Respondent
No.2-Anil Mandavi has committed sexual intercourse with her
from the year, 2014 upto year 2020, and, thereafter, from the year
2021 upto April 2024 and, has refused to marry with her.
3. Based upon the aforesaid allegation, the Respondent No.2 has
been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.
4. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that the Respondent No.2, while
alluring her on the pretext of marriage, took her in the month of
March, 2014 to his friend's house and has committed sexual
intercourse with her forcefully. It is alleged further that her relation
with the said Respondent was cordial, and in the month of March
2020, when she went to his house, where his mother has refused
to perform marriage of him with her and, therefore, she stopped
talking with him and, alleged further that in the month of
December, 2021, the Respondent No.2 again came to her house
and stated that because of the pressure of his mother, he stopped
talking with her, but he wanted to live and marry with her and
started talking with her and on the pretext of marriage, he again
gained her confidence and committed the alleged offence upto
April 2024. It is allegd further that since he has made the alleged
relations on the false plea of marriage, therefore, he is liable to be
punished.
5. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was
examined as PW/3 and a bare perusal of her statement would
show that the alleged relation of her with the said respondent was
made continuously from the year 2014 upto 2020 and, thereafter
also from the year 2021 upto 12 th April 2024, and, it appears
further from her cross-examination, particularly Paragraph 16, that
infact, he never refused to marry with her, and, instead his
mother has refused to marry of him with her. It appears further
from Paragraph 17 of her testimony that the alleged relations
were made with the consent of both of them.
6. It, thus, appears from a bare perusal of her statement that the
alleged relations were made with the consent of the prosecutrix
herself and despite knowing the fact that the marriage was not
solemnized with her by the Respondent in the month of April,
2024, no report, as such, was lodged immediately, thereafter, and,
instead the alleged written report (Ex.P/3) was lodged only on
21.05.2024.
7. In view of such circumstances coupled with the statement of the
prosecutrix, it is evident that the said respondent has not given
the false assurance of marriage to the prosecutrix and the Trial
Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has
not committed any illegality in holding that she was a consenting
party with regard to the alleged relations, so as to call for any
interference in this appeal.
8. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Arpan
