Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date:

2026.02.18

16:52:04 +0530

2026:CGHC:8182 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2123 of 2025 (Arising out of judgment dated 15/09/2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.51/2025)

Daneshwar Yadu @ Chhotu S/o Shyamacharan Yadu aged about 31 years, R/o Village Dhuma Bhathapara, P.S. Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Padmanabhpur, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswa l Judgment On Board

13.02.2026

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenges the judgment dated 15/09/2025 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.51/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Daneshwar Yadu @ Chhotu), whereby, the appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence Under Section 376(2)(n) of 10 years rigorous imprisonment the Indian Penal Code 1860 and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional 3 months simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution's case, summarized as follows: the 26-year-old prosecutrix (PW-1) is a resident of Dallirajhara, District Balod. She alleged that the appellant had engaged in physical relations with her for the past eight years under false promises of marriage, and later refused to marry her. He thereby subjected her to physical and mental torture. According to the prosecutrix, the appellant first had physical relations with her in May 2017 at a rented house in Dhanora village and subsequently continued to have physical relations with her at various locations, promising marriage. Whenever the prosecutrix discussed for marriage, the appellant kept postponing it, claiming that his parents would not agree to the marriage and would throw him out of the house, preventing him from marrying her. When the appellant finally refused to marry her, the prosecutrix informed her family about the entire incident. Subsequently, a telephone conversation took place between the families of both parties, in which the accused threatened to kill. Subsequently, a written complaint (Exhibit P-1) was submitted to the Padmanabhpur police station on 20.01.2025, based on which First Information Report (Exhibit P-2) was registered. During the investigation, the prosecutrix underwent a medical examination, prepared slides were sent for chemical testing, a scene map was prepared, witnesses' statements were taken, and after a thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

3. During the trial, to prove the charges, the prosecution examined a total of 05 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents in support of its case. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the statements of the witnesses who came against him pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness has been examined by him in his defence. Thereafter, the Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the prosecutrix (PW-1) was a fully adult, educated, and intelligent woman, with a postgraduate education and capable of fully understanding her own interests and harms. She was a consenting party throughout the entire incident, having freely entered into relations with the accused on numerous occasions. During this period, she did not lodge any complaints. She has made exaggerated statements before the Court. It was also argued that during cross-examination, the prosecutrix