1 2025:CGHC:31539-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 127 of 2018 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Saragaon District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • Umesh Kumar Suryawanshi, S/o Bhaku Lal Suryawanshi, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Sarwani, Police Station Saragaon District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 09/07/2025 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 24/10/2017 passed by the Special Judge (under the POCSO Act) Janjgir, District Janjgir- CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.09 17:54:52 +0530 2 Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.49/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”) and in alternatively for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 10/04/2014, a written report (Ex.P-9) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix before Police Station Saragaon, alleging inter-alia, that the respondent has abducted his daughter on 08/04/2014 around 02:30 to 03:00 AM from his lawful guardianship, while alluring her and based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex.P-10) was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. During the course of investigation, she was recovered on 24/08/2016 from the possession of the respondent from village Sarwani, Tahsil Saragaon, District Janjgir-Champa and her statement was thereafter, recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P-6 and she was examined medically by Dr. Anita Shrivastava (PW-1), who has submitted her report (Ex.P-1) where, neither any injury was found on her body, nor any sign of attempt of sexual intercourse was found upon her. After completing the usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act in connection with Crime No.46/2014 and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial 3 Court, who in turn, has framed the charges against him with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in alternatively for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and, the charges so framed were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2), has 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, while referring to the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2), submits that the respondent has neither abducted her, nor has committed any sexual intercourse with her forcefully and, therefore, the trial 4 Court has not erred in acquitting him from commission of the alleged offence. 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 the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in alternatively for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was abducted by the respondent on 08/04/2014 from her lawful guardianship and thereafter he has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. 9) In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and a bare perusal of her statement would, however, reveal the fact that she was neither abducted by the respondent from her lawful guardianship, nor has committed sexual intercourse with her. Since the prosecutrix herself has not stated anywhere that she was abducted by him on the alleged fateful day, nor has committed the alleged act upon her, the trial Court, has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10) The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant