1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 98 of 2023 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Karora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Devlal Nishad S/o Ramkumar Nishad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Tulsi, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent(s) : Shri N. Naha Roy, Advocate. SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 16/01/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23.01.2020, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.422/12004, whereby the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 506 Part II of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P.-1) was lodged by the complainant before the Police Station Kharora, 2 alleging, inter alia, that on 30.04.2004, she went to Village Kharora for her treatment on her Scooty along with the respondent-Devlal, who is servant of her brother, but while returning, he tried to outrage her modesty, assaulted her while abusing with filthy words and threatened to kill if she disclosed the incident to anyone else. Based upon her alleged allegation, the respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence mentioned herein-above. 3. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and has reiterated the alleged allegation, as was leveled in her report (Ex.P.-1) and, since her health was not well immediately after the occurrence of the alleged incident, therefore, she could not lodge the report immediately thereafter. Although, it was explained as such for lodging the report on 19.05.2004 with regard to the incident occurred on 30.04.2004, but her explanation to this effect cannot be relied upon, as her brother (PW-2) has stated in his cross-examination that his sister has lodged the report two to three days after the occurrence of the incident. That apart, no any medical reports have been placed on record showing that she was not well after the occurrence of the alleged incident. Therefore, the explanation as offered by her was rightly disbelieved by the concerned trial Court by disbelieving her testimony in order to attribute the respondent for the commission of the alleged offence. Besides, though it was alleged by her that she sustained injuries, on account of the assault made by the respondent, but the doctor, who treated her, was not examined, therefore, merely on her bald statement, it cannot be said that she has sustained the injuries, as alleged by her in her alleged written report (Ex.P.-1). 3 4. In view of above, and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has not erred in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 5. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Nikita