1 2025:CGHC:42023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.571 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Brijlal Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Mohandi, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Dilman Rathi Minz, G.A. For Respondent : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 20.08.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.08.20 17:15:31 +0530 2 (POCSO Act) FTC, District Dhamtari in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.103/2018 whereby, the accused/Respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 354, 323 and 506 IPC as also under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2), who is a minor girl aged about 17 years, resident of village ‘M’, P.S Magarlod has lodged a written complaint (Ex.P-2) stating that on 05.07.2018 at about 11 am, when she was going to college along with her friend ‘D’ (PW-4) for filling up the admission form, en route, near naka, the accused/Respondent, resident of same village, came from behind and with bad intentions, uttered lovey dovey words to her by holding her hand and when her friend ‘D’ (PW-4) and another person namely Bihari Diwan (PW-5) belonging to the same village intervened, he fled away from the spot while threatening to kill her if she discloses the incident to anyone. On 10.07.2018, prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2) has disclosed the incident to her parents and lodged FIR (Ex.P-3) on the same day at PS Magarlod. which was registered by Assistant Sub-Inspector GS Rajput (PW-8), Crime details form (Ex.P-4) was prepared by Inspector Paurush Kurre (PW-9), Patwari has prepared spot map (Ex.P-5), school admission register (Ex.P-9) was seized from the Head Master of the High School (Ex.P-8) and statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. accused/Respondent has abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents (Ex.P-1 to P-20) and D-1 to D-15. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the accused/Respondent pleaded innocence, taken a specific defence that since he performed an inter-caste marriage with the elder sister of the prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2), he has been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity, on the date of incident, he was present at the site of construction and in support of his defence, he examined his wife i.e. sister of prosecutrix Smt ‘K’ (DW-1) and mason Parasram Sahu (DW-2). 4. After evaluation of evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused/Respondent of the charges mentioned above. Hence, this Appeal. 5. Learned Government Advocate for the State/Appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and evidence of the case in its proper perspective and prays to allow the Appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent/accused supports the judgment impugned and submits that the same is well merited and does not call for any interference. 4 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with utmost circumspection. 8. Smt ‘K’ (DW-1), Sister of the prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2) has performed an inter-caste love marriage with the Respondent/accused against the wishes of her parents. She has deposed that her parents made various attempts to separate them and in order to take revenge, her parents and her younger sister have lodged a false report of sexual molestation against her husband. She has further deposed that on the date of incident, i.e. 05.07.2018, her husband has gone to work at construction site along with Parasram Sahu (DW-2) and Domanlal Sahu. Parasram Sahu (DW-2) has deposed that on the date of incident, the accused/Respondent was along with him from 8 am to 4 pm. Prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2) and her friend ‘D’ (PW-4) admitted that they did not inform the prosecutrix’s parents about the incident on the same day. 9. A minute scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, along with the absence of an immediate complaint, raises doubt regarding the occurrence of the incident, casting uncertainty on the allegation that the accused/Respondent committed the heinous act of holding the prosecutrix’s hand with ill intent. Independent witness Bihari Diwan (PW-5) did not state anything against the 5 accused/Respondent. He only deposed that on the said date, while the prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2) and her friend ‘D’ (PW-4) were going to college, the accused/Respondent stopped them on the way, however, he did not provide any information regarding the reason for stopping them and subsequently turned hostile. Thereafter, this witness has stated that on the said date, he has given police statement (Ex.P-13) that the accused/Respondent has misbehaved with the prosecutrix by holding her hand. When the Court posed a specific query, he clearly admitted that he had not seen the incident and stated that the accused/Respondent only stopped the prosecutrix but did not hold her hand. This witness also admits the fact that there were no talking terms between the prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2) and the accused/Respondent as her sister has performed an inter-caste marriage with him. 10. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the existence of enmity between the families, further noting that the incident was not immediately reported by prosecutrix ‘D’ (PW-2) and her friend ‘D’ (PW-4) and that the FIR was lodged belatedly i.e. after about five days without a proper explanation and also taking into account the defence evidence, has acquitted the accused/Respondent. 11. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire case appears to be fabricated. The finding 6 recorded by the trial Court acquitting the accused/Respondent is well-merited and does not warrant any interference. 12. Resultantly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya