1 2025:CGHC:56287-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 206 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Somni, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Appellant versus Jitendra Tande S/o Shri Jodheram Tande, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Dabpali, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr.Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Ms.Sakshi Singh Thakur, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 19.11.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.11.20 10:37:06 +0530 2 Rajnandgaon (CG) in Special Criminal Case (Under POCSO Act) No.41/2016, whereby, the respondent- Jitendra Tande, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 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 the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above, on the basis of written report (Ex.P-5), lodged by her mother on 16.06.2016, wherein it was alleged that on the previous day, i.e. 15.06.2016, her daughter, who was 17 years old, has gone somewhere else and an apprehension was raised by her that she was taken away by Jitendra and his friend, namely, Pawan Yadav and, during the course of investigation, she was recovered from the house of the respondent on 04.09.2016, vide Ex.P-22. After her recovery, as such on 04.09.2016, she was examined medically on 05.09.2016 by Dr. Ekta Denial (PW-10), but in her report (Ex.P-9), she did not find any injury on her body and, for the determination of her age, she was referred to the Radiologist. It, however, reveals from the record that no report as such, was placed by the prosecution, so as to hold that she was minor at the relevant point of time, as alleged by her mother. Even, the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-11, has failed to establish the alleged allegation as was levelled by the prosecution, as it was stated by her specifically that, neither she known to the respondent, nor anything was done upon her and, even she has refused her signature in her statement (Ex.P-20) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 3 3. In absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, 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) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita