1 2025:CGHC:47712-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.87 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Prosecution versus Nawal Patel S/o Maniram Patel Aged About 18 Years R/o Quarter No. H-19, Agriculture College Residential Colony, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent-Accused For Appellant/State : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Shri Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 17/09/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30.10.2017, passed by the Special Judge, SCST(PA) Act, 1989, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case SCST(PA) Act, 1989 No.37/17, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC, read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2 2) It is alleged by the prosecution that on 04.03.2017 at about 03.30 PM, the prosecutrix, who is a resident of Devnandan Nagar Phase-I, Sarkanda, Bilaspur and a student of Class-9th, was abducted by the respondent from the lawful guardianship of her mother and, that by alluring her on the false pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with her and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-10) was registered against the respondent. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-3, but, a bare perusal of her statement, would reveal the fact that nothing was done upon her, nor the alleged allegations were found to be proved by her, as evidenced by para-6 of her testimony, nor even the alleged allegations were found to be proved from the testimonies of her mother (PW-1) and brother (PW-8). 4) In view of such circumstances, we do not find any substance in this appeal, so as to call for any interference in the judgment under appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- D/D (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Judge Tumane SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.09.17 17:48:40 +0530