Chhattisgarh High Court
ACQA/101/2023 of RST Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 26 July 2026
2026:CGHC:31978-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 101 of 2023 RST Nil. --- Appellant/Complainant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Moudhapara, District Raipur (CG) 2 - Alok Mahapatro, Son of Shri Ramkrishna Mahapatro,
CGHC010087402023
2026:CGHC:31978-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 101 of 2023
RST Nil.
--- Appellant/Complainant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Moudhapara, District Raipur (CG)
2 - Alok Mahapatro, Son of Shri Ramkrishna Mahapatro, Aged About 36
Years, Resident of Village Jharigurma, P.S. Tetalikhunti, District Navrangpur (Orissa), At Present Address I.T.B.R. 5th Battalion Rajnandgaon (CG)
---- Respondents
For Appellant/State
:Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.1
:Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2
:None
ACQA No. 149 of 2024
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Modahapara, District : Raipur(CG)
---Appellant
versus
Alok Mahapatro, S/o Shri Ramakrishna Mahapatro, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Jharigurma, Police Station Taitlikhunti, District Navarangpur (Orissa) Hall
- I T B R 5th Battalion, Rajnandgaon(CG)
---- Respondent
For Appellant/State
:Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent
:None
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice
Narendra Kumar Vyas
Judgment on Board
27.07.2026
Per
Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 22.02.2023 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.57/2019 (Crime No.29/2019) by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (CG), they are being disposed of this common judgment.
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent- Alok Mahapatro was charged for the offence punishable under Section 376
(2) (k)(n) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the allegation that the prosecutrix, who was working as a Security Guard in Mekahara Hospital at Raipur, came in contact with the respondent in the year 2016, as he was admitted into the Hospital for the operation of his leg and, it was alleged that he, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse in the bathroom of the said Hospital and, on 05.05.2018, he called her to Ranchi (Jharkhand) on the said pretext and kept her in Saluja Hotel and made physical relations with her and, based upon such an allegation, he was charged for the offence as mentioned herein-above.
3. Although, it was alleged by the prosecutrix, who was 33 years old, as such, but from perusal of the record, it appears that on 23.10.2018, a written complaint (Ex.P-1) was lodged by her before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, alleging therein, that she was exploited sexually by the respondent in the bathroom of the Mekahara Hospital on the pretext of marriage when he was admitted into the said Hospital for his treatment and called her to Ranchi (Jharkhand) on 05.05.2018 and kept her in the Saluja Hotel and made physical relations with her. It appears that no action was taken on her alleged report as they arrived at compromise and, thereafter, on 29.01.2019, a complaint (Ex.D-4) was made by the prosecutrix before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur under sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C. and based upon the direction issued therein, an FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC in connection with Crime No.29/2019 and after the completion of due investigation and based upon the materials on record, he was charged for the offence mentioned herein-above.
4. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has, however, stated at para 18 of her cross-examination, that the respondent, at the relevant point of time was, however, even unable to walk, because of the injury to his leg, which was plastered and, was attended by a person, who remained with him till the date of his discharge from the Hospital. In view of such a testimony, it is difficult to hold that she was sexually abused by him in the bathroom of the said Hospital, as alleged by her in the written complaint (Ex.P-1) lodged on 23.10.2018. That apart, she was examined medically by Dr. Rajani Chaurasiya (PW-3), but was, however, unable to state that any physical relation was made with her, as revealed from her report (Ex.P- 7), nor she has found any injuries on her body. It is to be seen further that a slide prepared from the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix, seized on 15.02.2019, was sent for the chemical examination, but no semen was, however, found on it, as revealed from the said report. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that she was abused sexually by the respondent.
5. In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime.
6. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge Judge sunita