1 2025:CGHC:55308-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 339 of 2018 XYZ (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 25-08-2025) --- Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rungu Verma S/o Jhadu Verma Aged About 65 Years R/o- Village- Ninwa, P.S. and District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate, appears along with Mr. Hishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate. ACQA No. 374 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus Rungu Verma S/o Jhadu Verma Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Ninva, P.S. Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.11.14 11:27:43 +0530 2 For State/Appellant : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 13/11/2025 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Case No.01/2017 whereby, the respondent- Rungu Verma has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”), they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.12.2016, an FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix before the Police Station-Bemetara, alleging inter alia, that he was a Mason (राजमिस्ቔኍ) by profession and was doing his job at Puna and had received the telephonic information from his daughter/ prosecutrix on 05.12.2016 around 6:00 pm, that the respondent while alluring her took to the field and after removing her clothes has committed rape upon her. It is alleged further by him that he returned from Puna on 09.12.2016 and when he inquired about the alleged incident, it was informed by his said daughter that prior to 8-10 days, when she was playing, the respondent while alluring her has taken to the field and 3 assaulted with the stick on her backside and that by threatening her, committed rape upon her forcefully while removing her clothes. 3. Based upon the aforesaid allegations, an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 of IPC, read with Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act was registered against the respondent in connection with Crime No.731/2016 and during the course of investigation, the Dakhil-Khariz Register of her was seized vide (Ex.P/7C) from the Primary School Ninuwa, Tahsil and District- Bemetara, showing her date of birth to be as 15.09.2006 and was examined medically on 11.12.2016 and her statement (Ex.P/8C) was recorded before the Child Welfare Committee, Bemetara and, the undergarment and the slide of her as well as the “Angucha” (Safi) of the respondent-Rungu Verma was recovered and sent for the chemical examination, where no human sperm was found vide FSL Report (Ex.P/22). Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.12.2016 and after the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the said respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and the charges so framed, were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to being home the guilt of the respondent-Rungu Verma, 4 the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents, while none was examined by him. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution and that by relying upon the Dakhil-Khariz Register (Ex.P/7C), held that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident and, that by considering further the statement of her, held that the said respondent is not involved for the commission of the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted for the commission of the alleged crime and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ State as well as the prosecutrix submits, that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent-Rungu Verma 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, has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 7. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Rungu Verma has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent- Rungu Verma has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 and 506 Part-II of IPC, 5 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act on the allegation that on 02.12.2016, when she was playing in her home, the respondent forcefully took her to the field and while removing her clothes has committed sexual intercourse upon her. 10. Although, it was alleged, as such but, when the prosecutrix (PW/2) was examined, it was, however, stated that she was assaulted by the said respondent with the aid of stick and when she was crying, he then dropped her to her house and, deposed further that nothing has been done by him with her apart from the alleged act. It reveals further from her testimony that whatever has been stated by her, was made at the instance of her father, as he and the concerned advocate have informed her what to state before the Court. Further of her testimony, as revealed from para-3, would show that there is a previous enmity of her father with the respondent and, they had quarreled 3 to 4 times on earlier occasions. 11. Pertinently, to be noted here further that when she was examined before the Child Welfare Committee, Bemetara, it was stated by her that when the alleged act was done by the respondent, the same was seen by one Paklu, but said Paklu, who was examined as PW/4, has, however, turned hostile without supporting the alleged version of her by saying that on the date of incident, while he was returning from the field, he has seen that the respondent and the prosecutrix were plucking ‘Rahar’ for their respecitve fields and the respondent has not done anything in front of him with the prosecutrix. 12. Moreover, the Doctor who examined her medically has, however, not opined that a rape or sexual intercourse was done upon 6 her and, even no human sperm was found on the undergarment and the slide of the prosecutrix, as well as, on the Angucha (Safi) of the respondent when they were sent for chemical examination, as revealed from the FSL Report (Ex.P/22). No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution so as to hold that the said respondent has committed any offence upon the prosecutrix, as alleged by her father in his alleged report (Ex.P/1). 13. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Arpan