1 2025:CGHC:27023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 266 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station Aarang, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Balkaran Lal Verma S/o Late Khamhanlal Verma, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Rohnipuram, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri R. N. Pusty, Government Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Abhishek Thakur, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 23.06.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.35/2020, whereby, the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.06.24 12:25:02 +0530 2 respondent/accused has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989”). 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 25/11/2020, a written report (Ex.P-2) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station Arang, District Raipur, alleging inter alia, that on 18/11/2020 at about 1:30 pm, the accused/respondent called her in his Chamber and despite objection being raised, he caught hold of her hand forcefully, hugged and kissed her and somehow, she (Complainant), escaped herself and came out from the Chamber and, informed the same to her husband. It is alleged further that on 23/11/2020, the said incident was informed to one Lokeshwar Sahu, Kusumlata Sahu and Poonam Sahu, who were her staff members and, alleged further that on the same day, i.e. 23/11/2020, the respondent/accused again called her in his Chamber on the pretext of obtaining her signature and repeated the same act as was committed earlier by him on 18/11/2020 and, after the suggestion given by her staff and family members, the complaint was made on 24/11/2020 (Ex.D-2) before the District Education Officer, Raipur, and thereafter, the alleged report (Ex.P-2) was lodged before the concerned Police Station on 25/11/2020 and based upon which, an FIR (Ex. P-3) was registered against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(w) of the Act, 1989 and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and after completing the usual investigation, the 3 charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act, 1989 in connection with Crime No.557/2020 and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where after considering the material available on record, charges were framed against the respondent under Sections 354, 354-A of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act, 1989, which were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses and exhibited certain documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since there is material disparity in the statement of the prosecutrix and her reports (Ex.P-2 and Ex. D-2) lodged before the Police Station, Aranag and the District Education Officer, Raipur, therefore, the respondent can not be held to be involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. 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 4 prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and others’, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. The respondent is charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act, 1989 for the incident alleged to have been occurred on 18/11/2020 and 23/11/2020. According to the allegation levelled against him by the prosecutrix vide her report (Ex.P-2), it appears that on 18/11/2020 at about 1:30 pm, she was called by the respondent in his Chamber and caught hold of her hand forcefully, hugged and kissed her and the alleged incident was informed by her to her husband (PW-3) and, it appears further that on 23/11/2020, she informed the alleged incident to her staff members, namely, Lokeshwar Sahu (PW-2), Kusumlata Sahu and one Poonam Sahu. Further of her allegation would show that thereafter, on the same day, i.e., 23/11/2020, the respondent has again committed the alleged offence as was committed by him on 18/11/2020. It, however, appears that although, it was alleged as such by the prosecutrix, but when she was examined before the Court, it was admitted by her that a complaint (Ex. D-2) was made before the District Education Officer, Raipur on 5 24/11/2020, however, a bare perusal of it would show that neither any information regarding the alleged act of the respondent committed on 18/11/2020 was mentioned, nor with regard to the incident occurred on 23/11/2020. That apart, the alleged incident occurred on 18/11/2020 was informed to her husband, but, a bare perusal of his (PW-3) statement would show that despite knowing the alleged fact, no report, as such was lodged, nor has stated anything by him regarding the incident occurred on 23/11/2020. It is to be seen further that despite knowing the alleged incident, no report was, however, lodged either by the prosecutrix or her husband even when the second offence was committed upon her on 23/11/2020. It appears further that only on 24/11/2020, a complaint (Ex.D-2) was made by her before the District Education Officer, Raipur, where also she has not mentioned regarding the incident occurred on 18/11/2020 and 23/11/2020. In view of such circumstances, the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be held to be trustworthy and the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 9. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. SD/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita