1 2025:CGHC:54438-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 295 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Rameshwar Sahu S/o Shri Krishna Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o- Village Dewada, Police Station Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : None D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 07/11/2025 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 26/03/2018 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Sessions F.T.C. Case No.64/2016, whereby, the respondent- Rameshwar Sahu has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as “the POCSO Act”). 2 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P/8) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix before the Police Station-Berla, District-Bemetara alleging therein, that on 19.07.2016 around 9:00 pm, the respondent while alluring his daughter on the pretext of marriage, took her to somewhere else and, based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P/7) was registered against him for the commission of offence under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC and during the investigation, she was recovered from possession of the respondent at Railway Station-Durg on 23.07.2016 in presence of her father and one Tikendra Parganiha. 3. In order to establish the age of the prosecutrix, Dakhil-Khariz register was recovered from the concerned School as well as the mark- sheet of her and, she was examined medically by Dr. Smt. R. Devdhar (PW/7) and the undergarment and slide recovered from the prosecutrix as well as the undergarment of the respondent were sent for chemical examination and according to the FSL Report, no human sperm was found on the undergarment of the respondent and, after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court, where the charges have been framed under Sections 363, 366-A, and 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the 3 prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix was not minor on the date of the occurrence of the alleged incident and that by considering her statement, held further that no sexual offence was committed upon her and accordingly, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix (PW/2), has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him as such. 7. No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice upon him. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ State and perused the entire record. 9. The respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on the allegation that the prosecutrix was abducted by him on 19.07.2016 and while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, he committed sexual intercourse with her, who was minor at the relevant point of time. In order to establish the minority of the prosecutrix, the Dakhil-Khariz register (Ex.P/14C) was recovered from the concerned School and one Yugal Kishor Rai (PW/6), who was 4 the Lecturer of the Government Higher Secondary School, Sakra of District-Bemetara was examined, who however, not aware that on what basis and who has mentioned her date of birth at the time of her admission in Class-I. That apart, she was referred to radiologist for determination of her age when she was examined by Dr. Smt. R. Devdhar (PW/7), but no Radiologist Report was, however placed on record, so as to hold that she was minor at the relevant point of time and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in holding that she was not minor at the relevant point of time. 10. Although, it was alleged by the prosecution that the respondent, while alluring the prosecutrix has committed sexual intercourse with her but, the prosecutrix (PW/2) in her cross-examination, particularly paragraph-19, deposed that the respondent has never made any physical relation with her. Therefore, it cannot not be said that any physical relation was made by the respondent with her and even, no human sperm was found on the undergarment of the respondent vide FSL Report (Ex.P/35). 11. Father of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW/3 has, however, failed to establish the fact that his daughter was abducted by the respondent as it was stated by him, as revealed from para-12 of his testimony, that on the date of incident he was neither at home, nor was aware that with whom his daughter had gone. That apart, the prosecutrix was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the respondent at Railway Station-Durg, on 23.07.2016 vide recovery panchnama (Ex.P/3), but, the father and one Tikendra Parganiha (PW/11), in whose presence she was alleged to have been 5 recovered home, however, not supported the alleged recovery of her as they have not gone to Bhilai-Durg and, have put their signatures on the alleged recovery panchanama (Ex.P/3) only at the Police Station- Berla. 12. In view of the aforesaid background, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was either recovered from the possession of the respondent at Railway Station-Durg or was abducted by him, as alleged by the prosecution, or was found to be sexually exploited by him, so as to call for any interefernce in this appeal. 13. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Arpan