JUDGMENT :

Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

1. Assailing the legality, validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment of acquittal dated 06.11.2019 passed by Second Additional Session Judge, Korba (C.G.) (for short trial court) in Session Trial No. 110/2018, appellant/victim has preferred this appeal under section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.). By the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2019, the respondent no.1 herein was acquitted from charges under section 376(2)(n), 294, 506 (B) and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) by the learned trial court.

2. Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/victim submitted that the learned trial court is absolutely unjustified in passing the judgment of acquittal of respondent no.1 herein from all charges under the abovementioned offences by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and therefore it is liable to be set aside and the respondent no.1 should be convicted and sentenced for the commission of the above stated offences. He further submitted that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record to its proper perspective and erroneously passed the impugned judgment of acquittal which is liable to be set aside and the appeal may be allowed in toto.

3. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/victim and meticulously examined the evidence available on record. We have also with utmost circumspection perused the impugned judgment in order to ascertain whether findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record or not.

4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant/victim lodged a report against the respondent no.1 in police chowki Rampur stating that respondent no.1 on the false promise of marriage sexually exploited the appellant/victim from 2011 to 2018 and committed forceful rape. Because of which the appellant/victim became pregnant in February 2016 and August 2017, respondent no.1 forcefully administered abortion pill to her. In the year 2017 appellant/victim became seriously sick and she was admitted to Dr. Rohit Banchhor. Thereafter till 22.07.2018 respondent no.1 continue to have physical relation with appellant/victim on the pretext of marriage and thereafter refused to marry with the appellant/victim. On report being made by the appellant/victim, respondent no.1 spoke abusive words and threatened to kill her. Thereafter the investigation of the above stated offences was set on motion. After due investigation charge sheet was fled and before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba and after registration of Criminal Case, the same was committed to the Court of Session Judge, Korba. The case was made over to the learned trial court. The learned trial court framed charges under section 376 (2) (n), 294,506 (B) and 313 of the IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 13 prosecution witnesses in order to prove the guilt of the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 did not examine any defense witness. In statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., respondent no.1 pleads innocence and false implication. The learned trial court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to acquit the respondent no.1. The judgment of acquittal is being challenged before us and we carefully consider the submissions and evidence placed before us.

FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO SECTION 294 AND 506 (B) OF IPC

5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/victim has not seriously attacked the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondent no.1 under sections 294, 506 (B) of IPC during the course of arguments, still we proceed to examine the findings of the learned trial court and evidence available on record. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence of appellant/victim came to a conclusion that appellant/victim in her court statement has not specifically stated the actual abusiv