^"o^coS^^^ IN THE HIGH GOUKT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR •^*. ACOUITTAL^PEAL N0. ^7 / [Q JSff^ APPLICANT NON-APPLI^NT ^ w ^ ^ ^^ ^^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District-Magistrate Distt.-Korea (C.G.). Vs. Vinod Verma, S/o Chunnilal Verma, Aged about - 35 years, R/o - Moharpara, P.S. -Manendragarh, Distt. - Korea(C.G.). APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 J3) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 378 0) OE-/ CRIMINAL PROCEDORECODE, 1973. HJGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Acquittal Appeal No. 59 of 2010 Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Versus Respondents Vinod Verma CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 378(1) OF THE CODE OP CRIMINALj'ROCEDURE DB: Hon'ble Dr. I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Mr. G. Minhajuddin, JJ. Shri RajendraTripathi,Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri P. P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondent.; JUDGMENT(OraI) (Passed on this 13th dayof December, 2011) Per Dr. I. M. Quddusi, J. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24th July, 2007, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Maqendragarh, District — Koria in Sessions CaseNo. 107/2006, acquitting the accused/respondent from the charge under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code. Brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution story, are that in the month of August, 2002 the accused/respondent by alluring, the prosecutrbc on the assurance to marry her, connmitted rape against the will and consent of the prosecutrb;. Since then on various occasions the accused have had sexual intercourses with the prosecutrix. As a result of sexual relations between the accused and the prosecutrbs: a male child was born. Thereafter, on the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix that on 11.5.2005 the accused committed rape against her will on the assurance to marry her, the Firsf Information report was registered on 28.2.2006 by Sunil Singh/P.W.6). I 1, •'•'•• "' -i i ^^ia'S^i;"^S^':;>S;'':-;''r;'.'i;SiS'FS^S!%^s;s^^^:'^®^@ ^^,—^'^ /'•' S ' "-i '% ,v •^ffS^-^ v^, 3. 4. after making investigation and the challan was filed by the police in the Court on 30.3.2006. The charge under Section 376(1) of the I.P.C. was framed against the accused. The accused denied the charge and prayed for trial. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the papers on record we do not Gnd any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by learned trial Court. It is apparent that although, according to the prosecutrix, when at the first time the accused committed sexual intercourse in the month of August, 2002 at about 10.00 p.m. in the night on the roof of her house, she did not make any resistance. It is evident that the prosecutrbc and tbe accused have had access to the houses of each other and at many times the parties have had sexual relations;iThus, it would be safe to hold that the prosecutrix was a consented party. In view of the foregoing, the appeal fails and is disriiissed. No order as to costs.i --——~ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur