[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14205-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2654 of 2023
Smt. Xyz W/o Abc R/o (Address Is Provided Under A Sealed Envelop)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bemetara,, District : Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Kamleshwar Alias Kamlesh Baghel S/o Chaituram Baghel Aged About 32
Years R/o Village- Jhal, Ps- Bemetara,, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner/Victim : Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 2/accused : None
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25/03/2026
1. Heard Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondent No. 1.
2. By this petition under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the
judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 49/2022 (State
of Chhattisgarh v. Kamleshwar alias Kamlesh Baghel) by the learned
First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) District Bemetara, by which the
respondent No. 2/accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections
376, 376(2)(h) of the Indian Penal Code, 1980.
3. As per the prosecution, on 12.10.2022, the complainant/petitioner 'XYZ'
appeared at Police Station Bemetara and submitted a written
application/complaint stating that there is an Agricultural College in her
village Jhal, where other people from her village go for work. She also
used to go there for labor work for the past three years. A person from
her village, i.e. the respondent No. 2 also used to go there for work. On
19.06.2022, the respondent No. 2 started talking to her and told her that
he would marry her, keep her like a queen, and induced her with the
promise of marriage. The complainant has also written in her complaint
that during this period, the respondent No. 2 repeatedly lured her with the
promise of marriage and asked her to establish physical relations. On
25.07.2022 at about 4:00 a.m., when the complainant was going for
defecation, the respondent No.2/accused met her and again said that he
would marry her and asked for physical relations. The complainant
ignored his words and proceeded further, but at that time the light went
off, and the accused took her to his house and forcibly established
physical relations with her. The complainant has further written that
thereafter she repeatedly asked the accused to marry her, but the
respondent No. 2 kept avoiding her on one pretext or another. The
accused had physical relations with her only once. At the time when the
accused established physical relations with her, she was three months
pregnant, and when the complaint was made, she was six months
pregnant. Due to social stigma, she did not inform anyone about the
incident and remained silent at home. The victim has also written in her
report that when her husband Mahesh Sahu asked her, she narrated the
incident to him. The complainant has further stated that the accused
Kamlesh Baghel, by luring her with the promise of marriage, committed
sexual exploitation (rape) upon her, and appropriate action should be
taken against him.
4. On the basis of the above written complaint of the victim/complainant,
Crime No. 557/2022 was registered at Police Station Bemetara against
the respondent No. 2/accused. After completion of the entire
investigation, a charge-sheet was presented before the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara who committed the case to the Court of
Sessions vide order dated 04.11.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.
1731/2022.
5. In this case, the prosecution has examined a total of 16 prosecution
witnesses in support of its case--the victim (PW/1), Mahesh Sahu
(PW/2), Meghnath Mijho (PW/3), Ramji Pathak (PW/4), Malikram Sinha
(PW/5), Rambati Dhruv (PW/6), Dharmraj Vishwakarma (PW/7),
Dhanesh Lahare (PW/8), Haripriya Sahu (PW/9), Dr. Khushboo
Dewangan (PW/10), Dr. Gautam Kumar (PW/11), Ambar Singh
Bhardwaj (PW/12), Reena Gaikwad (PW/13), R.L. Bhaskar (PW/14),
Yugal Kishor Sahu (PW/15), and Lukesh Kumar Sahu (PW/16), whose
statements were recorded before the learned trial Court. The learned trial
Court, after considering the materials available on record and the
deposition of the witnesses, acquitted the respondent No. 2/accused on
the ground that the physical relationship established between the victim
and the accused was consensual in nature which does not amount to any
offence.
6. Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner/victim
submits that the petitioner be granted leave to prefer an appeal against
the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the
respondent No. 2 of the charges under Section 376 and 376(2)(h) of the
IPC. The victim in clear and categorical terms has explained the
circumstances under which she was subjected to forceful sexual
intercourse and as such, offence is made out.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/victim,
perused the pleadings and materials available on record.
8. From perusal of the judgment as well as the deposition made by the
prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that there is no evidence available
from which it can be clearly established that the accused obtained the
consent of the victim (PW/1) by putting her in fear of death or hurt. There
is also no evidence available in this case from which it can be established
that the victim (PW/1) gave her consent because she believed that she
was lawfully married to the accused. On the contrary, the victim was
already married to another person and was even pregnant. In this case,
there is also no evidence available to establish that the victim gave her
consent due to unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or administration of
any stupefying or unwholesome substance, and that she was incapable
of understanding the nature and consequences of her consent. There is
also no evidence in this case to establish that the victim was below 18
years of age. Further, there is no evidence to establish that the victim
was unable to communicate her consent. From the perusal of the court
statements of the victim, it is apparent that the accused made physical
relations with the victim with consent. Physical relations established with
a major and married woman with her will and consent do not constitute
the offence of rape. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted
the respondent No. 2 of the charges. Hence, we are of the considered
opinion that this is not a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted.
9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bablu / Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
