XYZ vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / victim, on the question of admission of this acquittal appeal.

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.

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.

We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant / victim and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

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: -

The victim is major on the date of offence.

Case of the prosecution is not supported by medical evidence.

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.

There is no explanation for the alleged delay in lodging the FIR.

The victim is also consenting party.

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.

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.