CHBATTISGASH v. State of Chhattisgarh

first committed sexual intercourse with her. Uma Shanker PW-4 hasstated that the prosecutfix had told him that upon on .assuronce of marriage, the appellont wcxs committing sexual intercourse with her. Bhuvneshwar PW-5 has also stated that on being called by Shyamlal, he had gone to his house ond found the prosecutrix inside the house with the appellant who said that prosecutrix was his wife. Thereafter, they left the appellant and the prosecutrix inside the house of Shyamlal. His testimony does notshow that the proseeutrix had raised OfTf alarm. Tilak Ram PW 6 has dlso stated that he hoidseen the '. '. pr-osecutrix and thedppellantsleepingpnThesdfflecot and the .. ,-.':-'^-;:.-: .'" .'.... .;' ." ;'^.:' '"^-•':-" ^ .' •• '• • . ' l' prosecutrix had told tiim that the 'appelkart had cssui'ed 1a ^^Cj '. '^ft^itll^^l •:SJSSsiSSSSS :^1 •'^ J' •!i];"'!i ^ [il.-! marry her. The love tetters written by the prosecutrix to the appellant Ex.b-3 to &-7 were shown to Tilak Ram PW-6 who admitted that they were in the hand writin9 of the prosecutrix. In para 8 of her- •tBStimSny, the prosecutrix also admitt'ed that •theoppellointusedto write love letters to her to which she used to reply. Mdtikram P.Vy.7 also stcited that on seeing The oppellanT with The prosecutrix inside the house of Shyarn) the •Hiey hwe mutually developed a told him that Oippellant Efl: relationship. He also stoted that the prosecutrix djc! not complain a9ainstthe appeltant.

8. In para 2 of her testimony, the prosecutrix has ciearly ddmitted that she did not divulge the fact of her being sexually exploited by the cppellont tilt the oppelldnt initiated talks fpr marryin9 ono-ther 91?!. Rudha Bai P.W.3 also deposed that the appellant usedto visither houss in her nbsenceand onbemg •ttiat he would marry the seolded used to assure her prosecutrix. She admitted that-the prosecytrix told her only after marriage of the oppellant was ^ttled with one ©jtacnd it ^ was only then thot they lodged the report. This clearty reveals 1+iat the sexual relationdiip was developed by the prosecutrix voluntarily and of her own free will with the appellant. Aftera lapse of time, when the oppelloOTt expressed his intention to marry onother 9ii'l °i<sp°''1'was lodged. There is no'rtiing in her evidence to demonstrate that without ony deliberation, she succumbed to the psychologicai Rressure exerted or allurements madetby the acaise-d a weak mofflen't'. Nor does her evidence incliccrte •thort' she was incapjdbl®|o^ 'm "?%§^:;' ;9Sff" ai:'! i"§ ' u 0 i 5 §' 8 t §- ..t ^yysjSSSSsfSSssSS^^SiSSSv 5- 1 c: 1 y s 1(5~ 1 1u d•-I 5- § o 3 §- IM ^ n <' s s s »i I. I s ? 3 8 .1. 3 §. N i o 1 wQ- -^ g 1 e 1 I y 3 3 t ^ i 8 o 3 n •o ? 13 -3 I-n"t 1ia 3 o -I- n1&- §- n I. -+ o §" T3 8 ? 1 o ^ 3"s- n 11 u -a -I 1 8 n •^^:^l^'::'ii:^:-^—^:-^--'••'^^s'y^s^^^^^^S^^',^.f:. 8 S, ^ § (0 11 t 1 p118 1 3 I s I- s ? T3 B ^ (Or ^ TO o- 3 < n Q-h 3- o-s §_1 s.IIB g o i--e s^ ^ (O ~a 1T x s: i 3" n .-s 8 1 y n ^ 3- R (» •o 1x 1 8 o ~<1 1(n % 1 o ? o- o c: o- • 1 (O ^ (O 3- Q- 'l a. 3- 3 1il i. ,3^ 10 v0 ? •s. Q. (a"3 3 3^ tB 3- n «i 0 I 1i- "q t Ut -! 0~ 7T 1 i d» & V ci§- t"3 -o ? "p -ii 8^ -o 3i I-f» 31 s -o •o 3 o 10_ N 3 Ui 3" 3- §. §- 8 u i3 3- n ~a 1 0- 8 8 ^ §t 3- n^ 3 3. Ol. ^ 5 3- n ^. Q;'-' §. 1 1& ? §- t 7T ^ 1 1 .0 -5' Q-h (0 8 B- s 1 t' 3 1 Q 1ia o 3 s il' -§ 1o 3 3 D- ^n 8 11 ? "o ~s 8 £ x 10 o § 0 ^ y o. II I 3 Q. (O d 3 1 ^- 1 l' ^ ? '<' I 1 §. 1 o 3, w n 8 1 §- 1 0\

10. In the result, this appedl is allowed. Gonviction of the appeliant under Sections 376 (1) IPC oind the sentence awarded thereunder by the leamed tria! Judge is set aside. The appellont is acquitted and shallbe set at tiberty forthwith, if not required in any other ease. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya < Kllljl1: l.lt' w m