1 2025:CGHC:49142-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 298 of 2017 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lundra District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Devnarayan Lakra S/o Majhiram Lakra Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Podikhurd Police Station Darima District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ajit Kerketta S/o Late Sohan Ram Kerketta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bakalo Police Station Darima, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Guddi Kerketta W/o Ajit Kerketta Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bakalo Police Station Darima, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Stat/Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No. 1 : None. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Adv. On behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (25.09.2025) SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.09.25 16:58:44 +0530 2 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 19.06.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Surguja (Ambikapur) in Sessions Trial (POCSO) No. 09/2014, whereby, the respondent No. 1-Devnarayan Lakra has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342(two counts) and 506 Part-II read with Section 3-a of POCSO Act and in alternatively under Section 376(2) of IPC read with Section 5(l) of POCSO Act, while respondent No. 2-Ajit Kerketta and respondent No. 3-Smt. Guddi Kerketta, under Sections 368(two counts), 342(two counts) and 506 Part- II(two counts) of IPC and in alternatively under Section 5(g) of POCSO Act. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that respondent No. 1- Devnarayan Lakra, while alluring the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage, abducted her and her sister on 22.08.2013, in the night around 9:30 PM and kept them in the house of his sister and brother-in-law i.e., respondents No. 2 and 3 herein, who have assisted him for his alleged act. Based upon the report lodged by the prosecutrix on 07.09.2013, the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offences mentioned hereinabove. 3 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-5 and, a bare perusal of her statement, would reveal the fact that in fact the respondent No. 1 has neither abducted her nor her sister on the said fateful date, nor kept her in the house of his sister and brother-in-law, nor has made any physical relations with her. Similar is the statement of her sister, who was examined as PW-9. Even according to the FSL report (Ex- P/42), no human sperm was found in the undergarment and the slide of the prosecutrix. It, thus, appears that the allegation so made was, however, not found to be established from the statement of the prosecutrix and her sister, nor was found to be corroborated by the alleged FSL report (Ex-P/42). In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court has, thus, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. 4. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Sourabh P.