1 2025:CGHC:47600 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 481 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Ram Prasad @ Chhote Bhai Diwakar S/o Chandulal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Jhalmala Tandpara, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For the the appellant / State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate For the respondent / accused : Mr. Parasmani Sriwas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been filed by the State u/s 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in Special Case No. 44/2018 whereby the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), District Janjgir Champa has acquitted the accused respondent of the charges punishable under section 354/34 IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.08.2018 at about 6.00 p.m., the victim went to the field behind her house to answer the nature’s call. At that time, accused Ramprasad and co-accused 2 juvenile offendor followed her and with an intention to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her and fell down her on the ground. On hearing the screams of the victim (P.W.1), her mother P.W.2 came there and seeing her, the accused Ramprasad and juvenile boy fled from the scene. The incident was witnessed by mother of victim (P.W.2) and father. The written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the victim, on the basis of which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-10. Site map of the spot (Ex.P-2) was prepared on 10.09.2018. On 16.09.2018, the JMFC, Akaltara registered a written statement (Ex.P-3) of victim (P.W.1) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The respondent after being charged abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined total 5 witnesses i.e., victim (P.W.1), her mother (P.W.2), her father (P.W.3), Chandrasen Bareth (P.W.4), Chandrabhan Singh Markam (P.W.5) & K.P. Tandon (P.W.6). After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, acquitted the appellant of the charges 354/34 and 8 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent from the offences charged and the findings recorded by it is unjust, improper and bad in law, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel respondents supports the impugned judgment and submits that in absence of material evidence against the 3 respondent, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and have also perused the trial Court records. 7. It reflects from the statement of victim (P.W.1) that she has categorically stated that she had gone to the pond to take bath where the juvenile slipped in the pond, seeing which victim (P.W.1) laughed, then the juvenile and accused Ramprasad chased victim and on hearing the noise of the victim, her parents came and thereafter the victim and her mother P.W.2 went to the Sarpanch, Sarpanch prepared complaint (Ex.P-1) to lodge a complaint. 8. In her cross examination, victim (P.W.1) has categorically denied the suggestion that when she had gone to pond then the accused Ramprasad Diwakar and Juvenile chased her. She has further denied the suggestion that Juvenile offender caught her leg and accused Ramprasad caught her arm. She has also denied the suggestion that both of them together threw her to the ground. The said statement of the victim stood firm by her mother (P.W.2). 9. The trial Court though recorded the fact that the victim was minor being below 18 years of age at the time of incident but on appreciating the statements of victim and her mother, the court found that accused Ramprasad did not commit the incident with the victim and the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. In 4 absence of any material evidence on record against the accused respondent, the trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused. 10. A minute reading of evidence of victim (P.W.1) and her mother (P.W.2) shows that both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in their cross examination and they turned hostile. I do not find any merit in the acquittal appeal warranting interference in the impugned judgment as the findings drawn by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence. 11. Consequently, this appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao