Dismissed¶30

Abc (Victim) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jun 2026ACQA/237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court ACQA 237/2024 (decided 19/06/2026): victim's appeal under S.14-A(1) SC/ST Act against acquittal of rape-on-promise-of-marriage accusation; appeal dismissed at admission stage; consent established by prolonged silent relationship (17/10/2021–11/03/2022), prior compromise Ex.D-7, counter-report Ex.D-1 (Rs.9,00,000 extracted / Rs.15,00,000 demanded), reliance on Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 11 SCC 398; Sections 376(2)(k)(n) & 506 Part-II IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act 1989; bench Sanjay S. Agrawal & Narendra Kumar Vyas, JJ.; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself and the acquittal of respondent No.2 stands. ¶30

Abc (Victim) Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the criminal appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself and the acquittal of respondent No.2 stands.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 11/12/2023 of the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur acquitting respondent No.2 Vikas Soni of offences under Sections 376(2)(k)(n) and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 is legal and proper (victim's appeal under Section 14-A(1)) +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Since both parties were married — the victim admitted she was not a divorcee and was aware respondent No.2 had not given divorce to his wife — it cannot be said she was falsely assured of marriage.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The victim remained completely silent throughout the prolonged period of the relationship (first act on 17/10/2021 continuing up to 11/03/2022); her alleged relation with respondent No.2 was consensual in nature.

¶29

Key takeaways

Applying the Supreme Court's holding in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398 — that where a woman knowingly maintains a physical relationship for a prolonged period it cannot be said with certainty that it was made purely because of a promise of marriage — this Court found no infirmity in the trial Court's judgment of acquittal holding the relationship consensual.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (ACQA No. 237 of 2024) by the victim under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the acquittal (judgment dated 11/12/2023, Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, Special Criminal Case No.43/2022) of respondent No.2 Vikas Soni for offences under Sections 376(2)(k)(n) and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 — alleged sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage from 17/10/2021 to 11/03/2022, alleged forced abortion and caste-based abuse. Trial history: earlier complaints (Ex.D-9, 14/04/2022; Ex.D-10, 18/04/2022) were followed by a compromise (Ex.D-7, 19/04/2022); thereafter respondent counter-reported (Ex.D-1, 24/05/2022) alleging illegal extraction of Rs.9,00,000 and demand of Rs.15,00,000, with legal notice (Ex.D-8); the victim's report (Ex.P-1) followed on 11/06/2022. The victim failed to produce any pregnancy document or medical consultation (para 57 of testimony); she admitted she was not a divorcee and knew the respondent had not divorced his wife, and deposed (para 29 of testimony) that no physical relation could occur contrary to her wish and that relations were on mutual consent. Holding: the relationship was consensual; per Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, a knowingly prolonged physical relationship cannot be attributed purely to a promise of marriage; no infirmity in the acquittal. Appeal dismissed at the admission stage. (Division Bench: Sanjay S. Agrawal & Narendra Kumar Vyas, JJ.; per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.) — marked NAFR.

¶1

¶2

SUNITA GOSWAMI

¶3

Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.06.22 10:37:48 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:24907-DB

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

ACQA No. 237 of 2024

¶8

1 - ABC (Victim) Nil

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (CG).

¶12

2 - Vikas Soni S/o Late Shri Ramkishan Soni, Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 716, Trimurti Chawk, Sundar Nagar, Thana D.D. Nagar, Raipur (CG) Other Address House No. 717, Trimurti, Chawk, Sundar Nagar, Thana D.D. Nagar, Raipur (CG).

¶13

	... Respondents
For Appellant	: Mr. Arvind Panda, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Himanshu Thakur, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.1	: Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate

¶14

DB:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

¶17

19/06/2026

¶18

1 . This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/victim under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the

¶19

¶20

legality and propriety of the judgment dated 11/12/2023, passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.43/2022, whereby, the respondent No.2- Vikas Soni, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(k)(n) and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶21

2 . From perusal of the record, it appears that on 11/06/2022, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the appellant/victim before the In-charge Police Station, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, alleging inter alia , that the respondent No.2Vikas Soni, on the pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse with her and succeeded to got her abortion forcefully and abused her while using filthy words upon knowing the fact that she belongs to a ‘Scheduled Caste’ Community. It is alleged by her in the said complaint that respondent No.2- Vikas Soni, who was a married man and was aware that she is living separately from her husband along with her two daughters, stated that his relation is not well with his wife and wanted to marry her and, thereafter started meeting her. Further of her allegation is that on 17 th October, 2021, he has shown his house situated at Agroha Colony, Raipur, where while alluring her on the pretext of marriage had committed sexual intercourse with her and has made the alleged relations up to 11 th March, 2022, owing to which, she became pregnant

¶22

¶23

and when she insisted for solemnization of the marriage, he however, refused and started pressurizing her to get the child aborted and when she refused, he started abusing her while using filthy words and threatened to kill. Based upon the alleged allegations, he was charge-sheeted for the offence mentioned herein-above.

¶24

3 . Perusal of the record would, however, reveal the fact that much prior to lodging of the alleged report (Ex.P-1), a report (Ex.D-9) dated 14/04/2022 and 18/04/2022 (Ex.D-10) was lodged by her before the concerned Police Station against the respondentVikas Soni, alleging therein, that she was exploited physically by him while alluring her on the pretext of marriage. It appears further that immediately after lodging the alleged reports (Exs. D-9 and D-10), a compromise (Ex. D-7) was taken place between them on 19/04/2022, owing to which, no action was taken based upon her alleged reports (Ex.D-9 and Ex.D-10).

¶25

4 . Pertinently, to be noted here further that immediately after the alleged compromise made on 19/04/2022, a report (Ex.D-1) was lodged by said respondent against her on 24/05/2022 , alleging therein, that she has extracted illegally a sum of Rs.9,00,000 (Rupees Nine Lacs) from him and had demanded further a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) illegally and a legal demand notice (Ex.D-8) was also issued by him on the same day, i.e., 24/05/2022 for obtaining the vacant

¶26

¶27

possession of the house situated at Agroha Colony, as also of its arrears of rent, but instead of replying the alleged notice, the alleged written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the appellant/ victim against him on 11/06/2022 while alleging that he committed sexual intercourse with her on 17/10/2021 in the alleged house while alluring her on the pretext of marriage and has made the alleged relations continuously as such up to 11/03/2022, owing to which, she became pregnant and pressurizing to get it aborted and, when refused, she was then threatened to kill. Although, it was alleged as such that because of the alleged act of him, she became pregnant, but has failed to produce any document to this effect or even has consulted with a Doctor for her pregnancy, as revealed from para 57 of her testimony. In her evidence, as revealed from para 50 and 55, it was admitted by her that she was not a divorcee and was aware that the said respondent has not given divorce to his wife. In view thereof, when both are married, then it cannot be said that she was falsely assured by him to get married with her, particularly when she was a literate lady running a firm known as “Pitanshu Interior Works” and, instead, it reveals from her testimony that the alleged of her relation with him was made voluntarily as, according to para 29 of her testimony, it was deposed specifically that none could make any physical relation with her contrary to her wish while admitting further that it was made on their mutual consent.

¶28

¶29

5 . In view of the aforesaid background, it is thus, evident that the alleged relations were made between them voluntarily and it is not in dispute that the appellant/victim was major at the time when the alleged relation was developed and the first act of sexual intercourse between them was made on 17/10/2021 and was continued up to 11/03/2022, but throughout such a long period, she was kept completely silent about the alleged sexual assault meted out to her by the said respondent. Her alleged relation with him was, thus, consensual in nature and, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2024) 11 SCC 398 , has held that where the woman knowingly maintains physical relationship for a prolonged period, then it cannot be said with certainty that it was made purely because of promise of marriage and, we are, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of his acquittal passed by the trial Court holding that the alleged relation of her with him was consensual in nature.

¶30

6 . The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶31

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay S. Agrawal ) (Narendra Kumar Vyas ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

sunita

Abc (Victim) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abc (Victim) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ashish Singh Kachwaha @ Chhotu

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs Kamdev Burman

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Dev Kumar Gond

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Amarkant Jaiswal