1 2025:CGHC:2487-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 50 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Baloda District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus Prakash Ratre @ Chhotu S/o Gopal Ratre Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Arjuni, P. S. Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. For Respondent : Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. DB:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per-Sanjay S.Agrawal, J. 15.01.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 28.09.2017 VIVEK RAWAT Digitally signed by VIVEK RAWAT 2 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), District-Janjgir- Champa in Special Criminal Case No.32/17, whereby, the Respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 (A) of I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act, 2012”) and alternatively for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is, that an First Information Report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, namely, Chhatram (PW-2), on 24.05.2017, alleging therein that, 9 months prior to it, his elder daughter has gone somewhere else and later on, came to know that the Respondent has taken her away. Based upon the said information, the alleged F.I.R. was registered in connection with Crime No.85/2017 against the Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C., and during investigation, she recovered on 29.05.2017 from the house of the respondent vide Recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-1) and, after recording her statement and others’, the final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer before the Special Judge, Janjgir against him with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, where, the charge was framed against the Respondent under Sections 363, 366(A) and Section 6 of POCSO, alternatively, under Section 376 of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the Respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents, while none was examined by the Respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix and her father, arrived at a conclusion that the Respondent is not the author of the alleged crime and, accordingly, acquitted him from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the Appellant/State has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court acquitting the Respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to law, in as much as, the statements of the prosecutrix and her father have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgment, as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that an F.I.R. (Ex.P-5) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 24.05.2017, alleging therein, that 9 months prior to it, his elder daughter has gone somewhere else, and came to know later on that the Respondent 4 has taken her away and based upon which, the offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. was registered against him and, thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted with regard to the offence as mentioned herein-above. 9. Prosecrutrix, who was examined as PW-1, has stated in her evidence that the Respondent has not taken her while alluring on the pretext of marriage, nor has committed any illegal act contrary to her wish. She stated further that at the time of her admission, her age was recorded in lower side and deposed further that nothing wrong was done by the Respondent. 10. According to Chhatram (PW-2), the father of the prosecutrix, it appears, that he was not aware regarding the date of birth of his daughter and, in cross-examination, deposed that at the time of her (prosecutrix) admission, the date of her birth was recorded in lower side and based upon which, her date of birth has been recorded by the concerned teacher of the institution on presumption. 11. That apart, in order to establish the minority of the prosecutrix, the Dakhil Kharij Register of the prosecutrix was seized, vide seizure memo (Ex.P-9A), where, the date of her birth is shown to be recorded as 15.06.2003. However, the author of the same was not examined, in order to establish the said fact. Even otherwise, as revealed from the statement of prosecutrix and her father, her date of birth was found to be recorded at the time of her admission on the lower side and, rather appears to have been 5 recorded merely on presumption. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was minor, at the relevant point of time, nor can be said that she was taken away by the Respondent forcefully or against her wish, so as to call for any interference in the judgment impugned, as passed by the trial Court 12. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S.Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE vivek