1 2025:CGHC:14785-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 132 of 2018 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur District Surguja (CG) ...Appellant versus Puran Ram Rajwade S/o Amar Kumar Rajwade Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur P. S. Ambikapur District Surguja (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Ms.Seema Verma, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 27.03.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.03.28 10:29:58 +0530 2 Judge, F.T.C. Surguja (Ambikapur) (CG) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.26/2017, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and also under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the Act, 2012’). 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 06.05.2017, an FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix, before the Police outpost, Manipur of District Surguja, alleing inter alia, that the respondent, on the pretext of marriage, has developed physical relations with her for the last three years and, in the month of March, 2017, when he denied for marriage, a Meeting was convened in the village on 16.04.2017, where the respondent was directed to marry with her (prosecutrix), who however, denied the same on 21.04.2017 and, therefore, she has been compelled to lodge the alleged report on 06.05.2017. Based upon the alleged incident, an FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered by the concerned Police Station against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) and also under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Act, 2012 and, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P-6. After completing the ususal investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court, where the charges have been framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) and also under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Act, 2012, which were denied by him and claimed to 3 be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents, along with the Progress Report of the prosecutrix and Panchyatnama of the concerned Gram Panchayat, as Article “A” and Article “B”, respectively, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, held that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of 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, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while inviting attention towards the statement (Ex.P-6) of the 4 prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., vis-a-vis, her (PW-2) Court’s statement, submits that nothing wrong was committed by the respondent with her and the alleged report was lodged on account of some previous enmity and, therefore, the trial Court, has not committed any illegality in acquittng him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. The respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) and also under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Act, 2012, based upon the report lodged by the prosecutrix as he, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse with her for the last three years. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and, a bare perusal of her statement, particularly para 1, would, however, show that the alleged report (Ex.P-4) was lodged because of some previous enmity with him and has denied, specifically at para 2, that the respondent, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, has developed the alleged physical relations with her. Even, when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P-6, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, she has stated that the respondent has not committed anything wrong with her. In view thereof, we do not find any substance in his appeal. 5 9. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita