1 2025:CGHC:54437-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 331 of 2018 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- The In-charge Police Station Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant versus • Saban Toppo S/o Jaimukut Toppo, Aged About 25 Years, Caste- Uraon, R/o- Ranpur, Post Lokhandi, Police Station Jashpur, District- Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. For Respondent : None, though served. DB: 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 31/10/2017 passed by the Special Judge (under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) and Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jashpur CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.10 11:07:42 +0530 2 (C.G.) in Special POCSO Case No.25/2017, whereby, the respondent- Saban Toppo has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that initially a report (Ex.P-8) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 07/07/2017 before the Police Station, Bagicha of District Jashpur, stating therein, that on the date of incident, i.e., 02/07/2017, he went to the market at village Bagicha and his wife was in the field and his daughter, the prosecutrix, was at home alongwith his another daughter and when he returned in the evening around 06:00 PM, it was informed by his said another daughter that the prosecutrix was taken away by her brother-in-law (Jija) when they went to forest for picking up “Putu” and it was, thus, alleged by him that his son-in-law while alluring her has taken away somewhere else. 3) It was alleged further by the prosecution that the respondent, while abducting the prosecutrix as such, has restrained her in various places and has committed sexual intercourse with her and the respondent has, thus, been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence as mentioned herein-above. 4) In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and it appears from her testimony that in the morning on the said fateful day, she went to the forest for picking up “Putu” and thereafter she went to her friend’s house, where she 3 stayed for a day and then returned to her home. In her cross- examination, it was denied specifically that her brother-in-law, the respondent herein, has took her away while alluring her and has committed illegal act upon her and, it was denied by her that she was recovered from his possession on 09/07/2017. 5) That apart, although, it was alleged by her father at the time of lodging the alleged report (Ex.P-6) that on the said fateful day, he was informed by his another daughter (PW-5) that the prosecutrix was taken away by the respondent while alluring her, but when he was examined, it was stated that on the said fateful day, his daughter had gone alongwith her friends to the forest for picking up “Putu”, but did not return home and when she did not return for 4 to 5 days, a missing report was, therefore, lodged by him and at the time of lodging the alleged report, he has, however, not raised any doubt upon anyone, as was alleged by him in his report (Ex.P-8), lodged on 07/07/2017. It reveals further from his testimony that his daughter, the prosecutrix, when came to know that he lodged the alleged report, she, then came to the Police Station, Jashpur and from where, she was brought by the concerned Police to the Police Station, Bagicha, where, he met her. It reveals further from para 5 of his cross-examination that he was not informed by his another daughter (PW-5) that the prosecutrix was taken away by his son-in- law. He has, thus, not supported the allegation, as levelled by the prosecution and even the said daughter (PW-5), though stated at para 2 of her testimony, that on the said fateful day, when she was picking up “Putu” alongwith her sister, the prosecutrix at the forest, 4 her brother-in-law, took her towards the village Bhedia, but in her cross-examination, it was, however, deposed that her brother-in-law had not come there, nor has informed to her parents that he has taken away the prosecutrix. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that on the said fateful day, the prosecutrix was taken away by the respondent and has committed the sexual intercourse upon her, as alleged by the prosecution, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 6) The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Chandrakant