1 2025:CGHC:37441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 519 of 2019 State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Baloda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus Ajay Kumar @ Raju Nirmalkar S/o Faguram, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Amlibhata, Baksara, Police Station- Pantora, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. For Appellant/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 31.07.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.09.2017 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Special Criminal Case No.15/2015, whereby, the accused/appellant was acquitted of the charge under Sections 363 & 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the "POCSO Act"). Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.08.01 15:29:01 +0530 2 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the respondent/accused on 13.11.2013 at Village AB which comes under the jurisdiction of Police Station Balod, District Janjgir, abducted the minor prosecutrix from her lawful guardianship with an intent to compel her to marry against her wishes and to developed illicit relationship and also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault with the prosecutrix. It is further case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix (PW-10) lodged an FIR on 22.11.2014 at Police Station Pantora stating that the respondent/accused is engaged in driving of vehicle used in road construction. Prior to 8 months from 22.11.2014 the respondent came to her house and they had made love relationship with each other. Thereafter, the respondent allured her on the pretext of marriage and took her to his house without consent of her parents. He kept her in his house at Village P for about one and a half months and also made physical relation several times. But, on 21.11.2014 the respondent ousted her from his house. Thereafter, on the advise of her family members and others, she has lodged complaint before the Police Station and numbered FIR was registered on 23.11.2014. 3. Crime details form was prepared. The victim was medically examined by Dr. MJ (PW-1), who submitted the medical report vide Ex.P-1, opining that no external or internal injury was found on the body of the victim and the victim is accustomed for sexual intercourse. The respondent/accused was also examined by Dr. UKT (PW-7) who submitted his medical report vide Ex.P-8 opining that the accused is capable to perform sexual intercourse. Dakhil Khirj register was also 3 seized in which date of birth of the victim was recorded as 29.07.1998. After recording the statement of the witnesses, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused for the offences mentioned above. 4. In the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC the respondent/accused pleaded false implication and claimed to be tried. During trial the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. 5. After evaluating the evidence on record the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and evidence in proper perspective, therefore, the judgment of acquittal deserves to be set-aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused material available on record. 8. In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW-10), who is prime witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. At Para 2 of the deposition, she clearly stated that due to some dispute with her parents, she fled away from home and went to her aunt's house at Uttar Pradesh, and after some days, she returned to Raipur. In the examination- in-chief, she has not narrated anything against the respondent/ accused. Even the prosecution has declared this witness hostile and put question like cross-examination, in which, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. She further deposed that there was no physical relationship with the respondent and denied that the accused on the pretext of 4 marriage made physical relationship with her. Further, in cross- examination by the defence, the prosecutrix has admitted that at the time of incident she has attained majority. 9. Further, learned trial Court has also observed that no primary document has been filed by the prosecution on the basis of which date of birth was recorded in the school register. Father of the prosecutrix GS (PW-5) in the cross-examination stated that on the basis of Kotwari Panji date of birth the prosecutrix was recorded in the school register, however, no such document or Kotwari Panji has been filed or proved during trial. 10.After analysis of the evidence on record, it is quite vivid that there is no clinching or documentary evidence on record to prove the date of birth the prosecutrix at the time of incident. 11.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manak Chand alias Mani vs. State of Haryana, [2023 SCC Online SC 1397], has reiterated the law laid down by it in the matter of Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit [1988 (Supl.) SCC 604] and observed that the date of birth in the register of the school would not have any evidentiary value without the testimony of the person making the entry or the person who gave the date of birth. It was also observed that if the entry in the school register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value. 5 12.In the present case, there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses with regard to age, incident and the alleged offence. Further, In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible. 13.In light of the aforesaid principles and considering the facts and evidence of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment impugned and the prosecution has failed to make out a case for interference in the judgment of acquittal. The trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge under Sections 363 & 366 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 14.In the result, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay