1 2025:CGHC:21606-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 115 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Amarpal, S/o Chamra Ram Uraon, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Sonvarsa, Patelpara, Police Station Darima, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 09/05/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.09 17:12:06 +0530 2 Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 13/09/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Surguja (Ambikapur) in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No.09/2017, whereby, the respondent-Amarpal has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(<) and 313 of IPC and also under Section 5(B) read with Section 6 and Section 5(¥)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that, on account of the incident occurred on 05/01/2017, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(<) and 313 of IPC and also under Section 5(B) read with Section 6 and Section 5(¥)(ii) of the POCSO Act. It is alleged by the prosecution that, on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was kidnapped by the respondent from her lawful guardianship and, committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully contrary to her wish, owing to which, she became pregnant and ultimately, the respondent has got the same aborted. 3. The alleged allegation was required to be established by the prosecution by way of cogent and reliable evidence, however, the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-4 has stated that the respondent has never committed the alleged sexual intercourse 3 with her, nor the statement of her was corroborated by her mother (PW-3). Therefore, in absence of any evidence, the trial Court has not erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 4. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant