Chattisgarh High Court
A B C (Victim) vs Jeevan Lakra on 19 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:48205-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed
by ARPAN
ARPAN
SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.09.19
17:06:54
+0530
ACQA No. 239 of 2024
A B C (Victim)
... Appellant
versus
Jeevan Lakra S/o Sukhdeo Lakra Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sahanpur
P.S. Lundra District Surguja (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent : None
Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
19.09.2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section
372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the legality
and propriety of the Judgment dated 19.01.2024 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.) in
Sessions Trial No.22/2022, whereby the respondent has been
acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2)
(n) of IPC.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the respondent while alluring the
prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage has committed sexual
intercourse with her, but later on refused to marry, which compelled
her for lodging the written report (Ex.P/1) on 1.10.2021 and based
upon which, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against him and was
charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n)
of IPC.
3. From perusal of the evidence led by the prosecutrix, it appears that
she came in contact with the respondent in May, 2019, and met him
for the first time at Ambikapur, who, thereafter, took her to there in
his friend's house for two days and, thereafter took her to his house
at village Sahanpur where they stayed for 2 to 3 days and during this
period, he committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of
marriage. It appears further from her testimony that the alleged act
was done by him for the period of 2 years, but when he did not
marry with her, she therefore, lodged a written report before the
women Police Station at Ambikapur, where he was called and, from
there, he took her to his house while assuring to marry. It appears
further from her testimony that when he did not marry with her, a
meeting was convened in the village, where he was ready to keep
her as his wife, but despite of her several efforts, he did not marry
with her. Perusal of her testimony would, thus, show that the alleged
relation of her was made with him continuously for the period of
more than two and half years, but the report (Ex.P/1) was lodged
only on 1.10.2021 even without explaining any plausible reasons for
it.
4. It is to be seen further that prior to lodging of the alleged report
(Ex.P/1), a consent letter (Ex.D/3) was written by her on 06.08.2020
in presence of her parents and other of the villagers and, a bare
perusal of it would show that she on her own wanted to live with the
respondent and, thereafter, she lived with him upto 31.09.2020 as
his wife and, it appears further that despite living separately from
him as such, no report was lodged by her immediately thereafter for
the reasons best known to her.
5. Pertinently to be noted here further that even prior to lodging the
report on 01.10.2021, i.e., delay of more than two and half year, an
application (Ex.D/2) enumerated under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act was made by her before the Family Court at Ambikapur
on 05.07.2021, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Act of the
prosecutrix, thus, appears to be one of the consenting party with
regard to the alleged long relations with him. The trial court, after
taking note of these materials, has, therefore, not committed any
illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the
alleged crime.
6. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge Judge
Arpan
