2026:CGHC:11792-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 256 of 2017

1 - Ku. Panchi Sahu D/o Shri Maniram Sahu, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Dhaneli, Post Kolegaon, Thana Kunda, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus

1 - Sampat Ram Sahu S/o Shri Johan Sahu, Aged About 29 Years Village Torla Nayapara, Thana Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Pratap on behalf of Mr.

Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Shubha, Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer No.2/State Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J.

12.03.2026

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 52/2015 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent No.1 of the charge under Section 376 of the IPC.

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix and the accused were in a love relationship for about three years prior to 03.06.2015 and the said relationship was known to her cousins, namely Jhaduram Sahu and Jethiyabai Sahu. It is alleged that on 03.06.2015, the accused, Sampatram Sahu, on the pretext of marriage, induced the prosecutrix and took her to his house situated at village Torla Navapara. It is further alleged that the accused kept the prosecutrix in a room in his house for the night and established physical relations with her. Thereafter, on 24.06.2015, when the prosecutrix asked the accused to marry her, he refused to do so. Consequently, the prosecutrix submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Kunda. On the basis of the said report, FIR bearing Crime No. 89/2015 was registered against the accused Sampatram Sahu for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined with her consent and with the permission of the SDM, and the accused was also subjected to medical examination. The underwear of the prosecutrix and the vaginal slides prepared by the doctor were sent for FSL examination. The Patwari prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before the Magistrate.

After completion of the investigation and other formalities, the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Kabirdham, and thereafter the matter was transferred to this Special Court for trial in accordance with law. Thereafter, the learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, to which, the accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. Respondent/accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

4. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section

376 of the IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly P.W.1 (Appellant/Prosecutrix), P.W.2 (father of the prosecutrix), P.W.3 (brother of the pr