STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. BHUPENDRA SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 29.09.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Balod District Durg in Sessions Trial No. 32/2007 acquitting the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 376 (1) IPC.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that on 14.12006 un-numbered FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-4) a married lady aged about 20 years at the relevant time, at police station Supela, alleging that as her younger sister Dimpal Soni was married at Bhilai, she used to come there from Jabalpur. It is alleged that three months prior to lodgment of this FIR when she had come to Bhilai to meet her sister, accused/respondent developed intimacy with her, took her for a picnic and made physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage. It is further alleged that as the respondent/accused had assured her of marriage, she did not lodge the report for about three months. The prosecutrix has further alleged that about one and a half month prior to report being lodged, the respondent/accused had come to Jabalpur and there also he made physical relations with her. Based on this report, offence under Section 376 IPC was registered against the accused/respondent. Initially, the report was lodged at Supela police station but subsequently as the incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of police station Balod, the numbered FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered thereat. After investigation, the challan was filed by the police under Section 376 IPC followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/respondent has also been recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations made against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, three defence witnesses have also been examined in this case.