1 2025:CGHC:3308-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1078 of 2024 Madanlal Naik S/o Shri Bhogilal Naik Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Khorigaon, Police Station- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigah, C.G. (Complainant) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Baramakela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 2 - Uttar Kumar Bhoy, S/o Sadhuram Bhoy, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village - Parsadih, Police Station- Baramakela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, C.G. 3 - Khageshwar @ Shankarlal Yadav, S/o Sampat Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village - Lamipali, Police Station - Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 4 - Sampat Yadav, S/o Mayaram Yadav, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village - Lamipali, Police Station - Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. 5 - Manoj Yadav, S/o Sampat Yadav, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village - Lamipali, Police Station - Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For State/ Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgement on Board 2 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 20.01.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Guardian of the proscurtix under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the Judgment dated 23.07.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act) Sessions Division-Raigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, in Special Criminal Case No. (under the POSCO Act) No. 10/2018, whereby the Respondent No.3-Khageshwar @ Shankarlal Yadav, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 376 (2-n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act), while others have been acquitted, with regard to the offence under Sections 120-B and 212/34 of IPC. 2. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 11.03.2018, a written report was lodged by prosecutrix’s father before Police Station- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, alleging, inter alia, that on 09.03.2018 his daughter/prosecutrix was sleeping along with his family members and on the next day morning, when his wife woke up, she found that his daughter has gone somewhere else, and, thereafter, they searched and inquired about her, but she was not found in the house and they also noticed that the cash, amounting to Rs.46,000/- and ornaments were also missing from the house. 3 3. Based upon the aforesaid report, an FIR (Ex.P/7) was registered on 12.03.2018, in connection with Crime No.31/2018 against an unknown person and, during the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 05.07.2018 from the possession of Respondent No.3-Khageshwar @ Shankarlal Yadav, from the house of one Chudamani Nandi Ghosh, at village Padampur (Odisha) and, after recording the statements of the prosecutrix and others, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted his charge-sheet before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act and, the Trial Court has thereafter, framed the charge against the Respondent No.3-Khageshwar @ Shankarlal Yadav, under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act, while others have been charged under Sections 120-B and 212/34 IPC, which were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses and has exhibited 27 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix has gone with the Respondent No.3-Khageshwar @ Shankarlal Yadav, on her own wish and the said respondent has not committed any act forcefully contrary to her wish and held further that she was not minor at the relevant point of time, and accordingly, the respondents have been 4 acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence, and, being aggrieved the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Guardian submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not the authors of the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, vis-a-vis, Dhakhil Kharij Register (P-13C) showing her date-of-birth as 02.7.2000, and, thereby erred in acquitting them as such. 7. Mr. Sanjeev Pandey Dy. Advocate General for Respondent No.1/State has supported the contention of the counsel for the Appellant. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the prosecutrix has gone somewhere else on 09.03.2018 and, her father (PW/4) has lodged the written complaint (Ex. P/5) on 11.03.2018 before the Police Station Baramkela, wherein, it has been alleged that she has gone somewhere else and when they searched about her, it was revealed that a telephonic call was received by his brother, namely, Heeralal from two unknown telephonic numbers (9516598489 and 7772915338) which was held by Respondent No.3-Khageshwar @ Shankarlal Yadav, and, who was also gone somewhere else, therefore, he raised his doubt about him. 9. The First Information Report (Ex.P/7) was registered based upon the aforesaid report against an unknown person on 12.03.2018, and during investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the 5 possession of the Respondent No.3-Khageshwar @ Shankarlal Yadav, on 05.07.2018 vide recovery punchnama (Ex.P/6) from the house of one Chunamani Nandi Ghosh of village Padampur (Odisha) and, thereafter, her statement (Ex.D/2) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and, from bare perusal of it would show that she has had gone with the said respondent to Puri, Bhubaneswar, and Calcutta and has married with him at village Padampur and both were living as husband and wife. It appears further from her said statement that the said respondent has not committed anything forcefully against her wish and, in fact, everything was done in accordance with her own wish. 10. The prosecutrix was examined before the Court as PW/7 and, accoridng to her statement, it appears that on the fateful day, i.e. 09.03.2018, she went to Sambalpur, alongwith him and, thereafter, she went to Bhubaneswar, where they lived for a day in the Hotel and, thereafter, they went to Puri and stayed for 10 to 15 days, where the said respondent has committed sexual intercourse with her. It appears further that she had gone with him to Calcutta and thereafter, to Padampur (Odisha) where, she recovered on 05.07.2018 from the possession of the said respondent. It, thus, appears that the prosecutrix has visited various places along with him, but, has raised no objection, nor has lodged the report, thus, it, appears that the prosecutix, on her own wish, has visited several places along with him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said respondent has taken away the prosecutrix from her lawful guardianship illegally. 11. It is now to ascertain the age of the prosecutirx as to whether she was major or minor at that particular point of time when she was taken 6 away by the said Respondent on 09.03.2018. In order to establish the said fact, the prosecution has produced Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/13C) and, a bare perusal of it would show that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was shown to be recorded as 02.07.2000, but the author of it was, however, not examined by the prosecution and, instead one Vinod Kumar Patel (PW/11), the Headmaster of the said institution, i.e. Sishu Mandir Khorigaon of District Raigarh was examined. According to him, when the prosecutrix was admitted into the institution, he was not posted at that particular time and deposed further that the signature, which is depicted from the said Register (Ex.P/13C), was of one Lal Mani Nayak, who was however, not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. 12. Besides, the father of the prosecutrix was examined as PW/4, who however, was not aware, when he got the admission of his daughter in the said institution and similar was the statement of his wife, examined as (PW/5). It, thus, appears that the parents of the prosecutrix were not aware, when they got their daughter/ prosecutix admitted into the said institution. That apart, the age of the prosecutrix was found to be more than 18 years, as per the document, known as “Age Certification” (Ex.P/21), which was given by Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami (PW/23). The prosecution has, thus, failed to establish the fact that the prosecutrix was minor at the relevant point of time. Therefore, under such circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the prosecutix was minor at the relevant point of time, i.e. 09.03.2018, when she was taken away by the Respondent No.3 from the lawful guardianship of her parents. 7 13. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment impugned passed by the trial Court accquiting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 14. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is, dismissed. d/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan