ACQA/83/2026 of XYZ Vs RAMAKANT PATLE on 16 August 2026

1. This appeal has been preferred by the victim under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30/03/2026

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.137/2024, whereby, the respondent No.1- Ramakant Patle has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376(2)(n) and 506 Part-II of IPC.

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent No.1- Ramakant Patle has been charged for the offence mentioned herein-above, based upon the written complaint, dated 04/10/2024 (Ex.P/1) lodged by the victim before the concerned Police-Station, wherein, it was alleged that he came in her contact in December, 2022 and allured her to provide a job in marketing company “Mahadev App” and, allured further to marry and, while alluring as such, he committed sexual intercourse with her on 21/10/2023 at about 02:00 P.M. in her rented premises and despite of her resistance, he committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully and threatened to kill, if she disclosed the incident to anyone else. It is alleged further that, he exploited physically lastly on 13/05/2024 and when she came to know that he will not marry with her, she then lodged the report and, based upon the alleged allegation, he was charged as such.

3. Although, it was alleged as such by her, but from a bare perusal of her (PW-2) testimony would show that, she is a married lady aged about 30 years old and, was in his relation since the year, 2023, who committed sexual intercourse with her on

21/10/2023 at 02:00 P.M. in her rented premises and, made a physical relation with her lastly on 13/05/2024, however, the alleged fact was neither disclosed by her to her landlord, nor even to her family members, as revealed from para 10 of her testimony. It appears further that she has even not lodged the report immediately when she was exploited physically lastly on 13/05/2024. That apart, an application was made by the said respondent before the Additional Collector for marriage, but has withdrawn the same on 26/06/2024, yet she was kept silent for a considerable period of more than three months before lodging the alleged complaint (Ex.P/1) on 04/10/2024.

4. In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court has, therefore, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the alleged relation of her with him was consensual in nature while acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime.

5. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant