1 2025:CGHC:40353-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 8 of 2016 XYZ….. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhupesh Netam S/o Ramchandra Netam Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Khairi P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate appears along with Ms. Anjana Banjare, Advocate. For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vinay Dubey, Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 12.08.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix (The appellant is treated as XYZ/ prosecutrix in order to hidden her identity), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.10.2015, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Special ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.08.12 17:22:41 +0530 2 Sessions Case No.35/2015, whereby, the Respondent No.2-Bhupesh Netam has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO ACT). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent No.2- Bhupesh Netam has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, a report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 21.05.2015, alleging inter alia, that she is familiar with the said respondent, who oftenly used to come to her house for the last many years and, on the pretext of marriage, he made the physical relations with her, owing to which, she became pregnant and thereafter, he refused to marry with her and, instead solemnized the marriage to someone else on 1st May 2015. It appears further from her said report, that she informed the alleged incident to her friend, namely, Pragati Verma as well as to her sister-in-law (Bhabhi). 3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW/2, however, a bare perusal of her testimony would show that the alleged physical relation, as was alleged by her, was not made by him, nor the alleged incident was disclosed by her to her said friend and the sister-in-law (Bhabi). Further of her testimony would show that she was not pressurized by him to make such a relation on the pretext of the marriage, and it appears further that she lodged the report only when he refused to marry with her. Her sister-in-law (Bhabhi), who was examined as PW/3, has also not supported her version by saying that she was not aware that what happened with her 3 (PW/2). In view thereof, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the Respondent No.2-Bhupesh Netam from the commission of the alleged crime. 4. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Arpan