1 2025:CGHC:53525-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.219 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station, Baloda, District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Satnam Singh Jatwar S/o Rajkumar Jatwar, Aged About 20 Years, 2 - Brijesh Jatwar, S/o Amrit Lal Jatwar, Aged About 21 Years, Both are R/o Village Baloda, Ward No. 14, Thana Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent(s) : None, though served. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 03/11/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 12.12.2017, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.33/2015, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 4 read with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, ‘POCSO Act’). SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.11.06 10:58:22 +0530 2 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that a report (Ex.P-3) was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix on 12.02.2015 at 18.30 hours before the Police Station, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, alleging inter alia, that on 03.02.2015 around 9.30 P.M., when her daughter was standing in front of her house, the respondents came and caught hold of her hand and thereafter, they took her to a under- constructed house of one Subhash Ogre, where the respondents, after removing their clothes, tried to remove the clothes of her daughter, owing to which, she shouted and upon hearing her noise, her son came and after seeing him, they fled away from the spot. It is alleged further that she was informed regarding the alleged incident by her said daughter and after consulting with the family members, the report was lodged and, based upon which, an offence punishable under Section 354 (B)/34 of IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act was registered in connection with Crime No.30/2015 and after recording the statement (Ex.P-2) of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C on 19.03.2015 and after completing due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda for the alleged offence and, the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondents have been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 4 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents, 3 while the respondents have produced one witness and exhibited 8 documents in their support. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 4 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, are apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix and her relatives, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby erred in acquitting them as such. 6) No one appears on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State and perused the entire record. 8) From perusal of the record, as revealed from the report (Ex.P-3) lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix, it appears that the alleged incident was occurred on 03.02.2015 around 9.30 P.M. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-3 and, in her statement, though it was stated by her that the respondent No.1-Satnam Singh has removed his pant and tried to 4 remove her salwar and when she shouted, her brother and his friend came, but from paragraph 7 of her cross-examination, it appears that the alleged report was lodged for implicating the respondents in a false case, after consulting with her parents. Her brother-Amal Lal Mirjha, who was examined as PW-1, has stated that on account of the alleged incident occurred on 03.02.2015, he along with his sisters have lodged the report before the concerned Police Station, and, their statements were recorded therein. It, thus, appears that the report regarding the alleged incident was made on 03.02.2015 and from a bare perusal of the General Diary registered on 05.02.2015, marked as Ex.D-6 (C), would show that the respondent No.1-Satnam Singh, while consuming liquor has dashed his sister, owing to which, she fell down and when it was intervened, he started abusing while using filthy words. The statement of the prosecutrix’s sister in connection with the alleged incident was recorded on 05.02.2015 and has been placed by the respondents in their defence as Ex.D-7 and a bare perusal of the said statement would reveal the said fact as mentioned in the said Diary (Ex.D-6‘C’) and, similar was the version made by her mother, as revealed from her statement, marked as Ex.D-8 recorded on 05.02.2015. It appears further that based upon which, an Ishtagasha (Ex.D-5) was filed against the respondent No.1-Satnam Singh with regard to the offence punishable under Section 151 read with Section 107 and 116 of the CrPC. 9) What is, therefore, reflected from the materials available on record that the incident appears to have been occurred on 03.02.2015, 5 when the prosecutrix was dashed by the respondent No.1 and not as was alleged by her mother in her alleged report (Ex.P-3) on 12.02.2015. The alleged allegation, thus, appears to be a false one. Even, the prosecutrix has also admitted in her evidence that the alleged report was lodged in order to implicate the respondents falsely, after consulting with her parents. In view of such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents are involved for commission of the alleged crime, as was alleged by the prosecutrix’s mother in her report (Ex.P-3) lodged on 12.02.2015 and, the trial Court, after taking note of these materials, has not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10) The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/-D/-- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane