1 2025:CGHC:3032-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 105 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Hirri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Manoj Nishad, S/o Mahadev Nishad, Aged About 22 Years, R/o- Village Hardi, Police Station Hirri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. For Respondent : None Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 17/01/2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 12/10/2017 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.17 18:23:26 +0530 2 SCST(PA) Act 1989 - 32/2017, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 376(2) of IPC, Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”) and Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989”). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent was charge- sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2) of IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Act,1989 on the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix’s mother (PW-01) on 14/04/2017, wherein, it has been alleged that on various places and occasions, the respondent had committed sexual intercourse with her daughter, who was minor at the relevant point of time, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage and, instead of marrying with her, was trying to get married with someone else and therefore, she has lodged the report before the concerned Police Station. 3. At the outset, it appears that, although the alleged allegations have been made by the prosecutrix’s mother in her said report, but when the prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court, she has, however, denied the alleged allegation, as perusal of her testimony would show that the respondent has not made physical relation with her and the alleged report was lodged by her along with her mother only when she heard that he was going to marry with someone else. No cogent material has, thus, been placed by the prosecution on record and, even 3 the prosecutrix was found to be major, as per the age verification report (Ex.P-2), duly proved by Dr. G.S. Kanwar (PW-3). 4. In view of the aforesaid background and particularly in absence of any evidence, led by the prosecution, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment impugned of the trial Court 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) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Prashant