1 2025:CGHC:52128-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 10 of 2016 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus Rajendra Uikey S/o Ramji Uikey Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Ranidongari, Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate appears along with Mr. Vikash Patel, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 27/10/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22.08.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) and Special Judge (Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.03/2014, whereby the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”). ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.10.28 11:12:07 +0530 2 2. According to the prosecution, a missing report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix before the Police Station Bhanupratappur of District- Kanker (C.G.) stating therein that his daughter/ prosecutrix has gone somewhere else and, during the course of its inquiry, his daughter was recovered from the house of the respondent on 03.01.2014 and, after recording her statement (Ex.P/14) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and after completion of due investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court where based upon the materials available, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to offence mentioned herein-above. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as (PW/6) and, from perusal of her statement, it appears that she has denied the fact that the respondent has abducted her on the said fateful day, or has committed sexual intercourse with her, and it reveals further from her testimony that she was 18 to 19 years old at the time of her admission and, her father has recorded her date of age on the lower side. In view of such circumstances and, particularly when the prosecutrix herself has not supported the alleged allegation, the respondent cannot be held liable for the commission of the alleged offence. The trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 4. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Arpan