1 2025:CGHC:36059-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 279 of 2018 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Feku @ Prasad, S/o Nand Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Deogaon, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kamal Kishor Patel, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 25/07/2025 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 06/01/2018, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.19/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.26 11:47:50 +0530 2 regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A 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 under Section 376(1) of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the prosecutrix’s mother before the Police Station- Dabhra, alleging therein that, on 09/04/2016 at about 15 hours, her daughter had gone for attending the call of nature, but did not return and, therefore, they started searching for her and, during the course of search, it was revealed that, the respondent- Feku @ Prasad, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage took her somewhere else and, based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered on 16/04/2016 by the concerned Police Station against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC in connection with the Crime No.132/2016 and, during trial, Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/14-C and Ex.P/19-C) was produced, in order to prove the minority of the prosecutrix. During the investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 23/04/2016 from the possession of the respondent, in presence of two witnesses, namely, Hara Ram (PW-6) and Labhoram (PW-11) and she was, thereafter, examined medically by Dr. Madhuri Chandra (PW-7), who vide her report (Ex.P/3) has not found any injury on her body and after collecting the undergarment of the prosecutrix, as well as, the respondent, the same were sent for chemical examination and vide FSL Report 3 (Ex.P/34), human blood was not found to be deducted from the undergarment of the prosecutrix. Her statement under Section 164 was recorded vide Ex.P/9 and, after completing the usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, Sakti against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC, read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and based upon the materials available on record, the charges under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and, in alternatively under Section 376(1) of IPC have been framed, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, vis-a- vis, the attesting witnesses of the Baramadgi Panchnama (Ex.P/16), held that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding 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 has not been scanned in its proper manner and, 4 thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such, from the commission of the alleged crime. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while referring to the statement of the prosecutrix, vis-a-vis, the attesting witnesses of the Baramadgi Panchnama (Ex.P/16), namely, Hara Ram (PW-6) and Labhoram (PW-11) submits that since, neither the prosecutrix has supported the alleged allegation, nor was found to be recovered form the possession of the respondent, the trial Court has, therefore, not erred in acquitting the respondent form the commission of the alleged crime. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and, in alternatively under Section 376(1) of IPC. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix, who was 16 years old was taken away by the respondent, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage to somewhere else on 09/04/2016 and, has committed the sexual intercourse upon her. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2, but it appears from her testimony that, nothing was done with her by the respondent and, 5 even the attesting witnesses of the Baramadgi Panchnama (Ex.P/16), namely, Hara Ram and Labhoram, who were examined as PW-6 and PW-11, respectively, have denied specifically that, in their presence, the prosecutrix was recovered from the respondent. That apart, even in FSL Report (Ex.P/34), no human sperm was found in the undergarment of the prosecutrix. 9. In view of above, the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence attributing the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime and, 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/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant