1 2025:CGHC:52696-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 78 of 2018 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Outpost Vijaynagar, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • Rajesh Kumar S/o Ram Keshwar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Sendur (Kudru Khad), Police Outpost Vijaynagar, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Uttara Shrivastava, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 29/10/2025 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 29/07/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (under POCSO Act), CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.30 12:18:07 +0530 2 Ramanujganj, Civil District Surguja (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No.01/2015, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(D) and 506(Part-II) of IPC read with Sections 3-a/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”). 2) According to the prosecution, a report (Ex.P-5) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix before Outpost Vijaynagar, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur (C.G.), alleging therein, that his daughter, aged about 15 years old, was roaming the cattles for grazing the grass in a forest known as “Badka Damar Jungle” on 28/07/2014 in the morning around 09:00 AM. It is alleged further that the respondent- Rajesh Yadav and one Pramukh Yadav of the village have also roaming their cattles for grazing the grass, where they have mixed their cattles with the cattles of her, owing to which, an objection was raised by her and, at the relevant point of time, the said respondent has caught hold of his daughter and torn her frock and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully and the another accused, namely, Pramukh Yadav, during the said period, has pressed her mouth. It is alleged further that the occurrence of the alleged incident was informed by his daughter to him and his wife on 30/07/2014 and thereafter, he lodged the alleged report against the respondents and based upon which, the alleged offence has been registered against them for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506/34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was 3 submitted before the trial Court for the offence under Sections 376D and 506 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and also under Section 3(2-v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Imprisonment Atrocities) Act, 1989 and, based upon the materials, the respondent-Rajesh Kumar has been charged under Sections 376D and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Section 3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-4 and from perusal of her testimony would, however, reveal the fact that on the said fateful day, a quarrel was occurred with the respondent and his friend on account of grazing the grass by the cattles and informed regarding the alleged dispute to her father. It, thus, appears from her testimony that the alleged dispute was occurred on the said fateful day for grazing the grass by cattles and not with regard to the allegation, as was alleged by her father in the alleged report (Ex.P-5) and, the said fact is also fortified from para 11 of her testimony where it was deposed by her that at the time of lodging the alleged report by her father, the alleged fact was mentioned at the instance of the concerned Police Authorities. 4) Although, it was revealed from the alleged report (Ex.P-5), lodged by father of the prosecutrix, that he received the information regarding the alleged act done upon his daughter on 30/07/2014, but a bare perusal of his (PW-3) statement would show specifically that he received the said information on the date of incident itself, and, he deposed further that prior to lodging of the alleged report, his 4 daughter has not informed anything to him and rather, it was admitted by him that the alleged disputed was occurred because of grazing the grass by the cattles and owing to which, the alleged report was, in fact, lodged by him. 5) It is to be seen further, as reflected from her MLC report (Ex.P-1), conducted by Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-1) on 02/08/2014, that no injury was found on her body. Moreover, a slide of the prosecutrix and the undergarment of the respondent seized vide Ex.P-15, were sent for chemical examination vide memo dated 22/08/2014 (Ex.P- 20), but no FSL report has, however, been placed on record. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution attributing the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime. 6) In view of the above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant