1 2025:CGHC:48971-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 75 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (CG). ... Appellant versus Shahdev Khunte S/o Shri Jainarayan Khunte, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kaudia, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (CG). ---- Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant/State :Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent :Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 24.09.2025 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 03.10.2017, passed by the First SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.09.25 10:43:16 +0530 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (CG) in Special Criminal Case 06/2016, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 05.10.2015, the prosecutrix went to the School in the morning around 9.00 am, but did not return by the evening, therefore, her father searched about her from the nearby relatives, but did not find of her whereabouts, owing to which, he lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) before the Police Station- Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, on 08.10.2015 and, during the course of enquiry, based upon the alleged report, she was recovered on 30.01.2016 from the house of the respondent, in presence of two witnesses, namely, Sanket Kumar Kant and Jagdish Prasad. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-3, however, a bare perusal of her statement would reveal the fact that, in fact, nothing was done by the respondent with her, nor the attesting witnesses of the recovery panchanama (Ex.P-14), dated 30.01.2016, namely, Sanket Kumar Kant (PW-14) and Jagdish Prasad (PW-5), have supported the same, as she was not found to be recovered in their presence on 30.01.2016. Even the parents of the prosecutrix have not supported the alleged allegation, as levelled by the prosecution. 4. In view of above and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, 3 led by the prosecution, the trial Court, has therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 5. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE sunita