1 2025:CGHC:43736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2070 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Sariya, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Mukesh Chouhan S/o Mohanlal Chouhan Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Pujeripali, Police Station - Sariya, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 28/08/2025 1. This is a petition seeking grant of leave to appeal under Section 419(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereby the appellant intends to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 22.06.2024 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) in Criminal Case (POCSO) No.21/2020 by which the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent under Sections 354, 354(A) of IPC and sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act, 2 2012 in Crime No.147/2020 registered at P.S. Sariya, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim (P.W.1) lodged a written complaint on 25.08.2020 at Police Station Saria to the effect that she is studying in Class 11th in Kanya Shala and on 25.08.2020 at around 5.00 p.m., she was walking on the road, then the accused Mukesh Chauhan seeing her alone started pulling her by holding her hand and said that he loves her and wants to marry her. When she raised alarm due to fear the accused Mukesh ran away from there. It is further alleged that prior to this incident, the accused used to say that he loves her and will not let her get married anywhere else and when the accused apologized after convincing her family members, the report was not registered at that time. On the basis of the said report, the offence was registered against the accused Mukesh Chauhan. 3. In this case, total 12 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has denied the statements of the witnesses made against him. The accused has got himself examined in his defence and has produced letters from Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5 in his defence, which were allegedly written to him by the prosecutrix. The trial Court has found the evidence of victim not credible and passed the order of acquittal, which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. The submission of the learned State Counsel is that despite the fact that the prosecutrix and other witnesses supported the case of prosecution regarding the incident and the age of prosecutrix, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent/accused of all charges without correctly appreciating the evidence, which cannot be sustained. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the 3 material placed on record. 6. On the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties the trial court in para 25 of its judgment has held that that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was minor, being below 18 years of age on the incident date 25/07/2020. The trial court has also found in paragraphs 52 and 54 that when the letters from Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5 were confronted by the accused with the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix denied writing the said letters to the accused, but the said letters are present in the records, which the accused has produced in his defence. Along with this, the prosecutrix has also stated the presence of her uncle at the scene of the incident, but the alleged uncle has not been examined to prove his presence. On this basis, the trial court has not found the statement of the sole prosecutrix credible and accordingly passed the order of acquittal. 7. Having perused the impugned judgment as also the material placed on record and further looking to the nature of evidence led by the prosecution, I do not find it a fit case to grant leave to appeal under section 419(3) of the BNSS 2023 so as to interfere in the findings of the impugned judgment which are based on proper appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed at the motion stage, itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge R a o