1 2025:CGHC:56522-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 368 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station Deobhog, District Raipur (Presently District Gariyaband) (CG) ... Appellant versus Pawan Banjare S/o Chagolal Banjare, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Dumardih ,Police Station Utai, District- Raipur (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : None, though served Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 20.11.2025 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 01.02.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.11.21 10:48:25 +0530 2 from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Special Criminal POCSO Case No.1368/2014, whereby, the respondent- Pawan Banjare, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, a missing report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix before the Police Station, Deobhog of District Gariyaband, stating therein that, his daughter was sleeping on 11.04.2012, but was not found in the morning of 12.04.2012 and based upon the alleged information, an enquiry was conducted, wherein, it was revealed that some unknown person has abducted her, on 12.04.2012 at 15.00 hours and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-12) was registered against an unknown person in connection with Crime No.75/2013 and, during the course of investigation, she was recovered on 20.11.2014 from the possession of the respondent and, her statement (Ex.P-17) was, thereupon, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court against the respondent, alleging inter alia, that he, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse with her and, based upon the alleged allegation, he was charge-sheeted for the offence mentioned herein-above, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. Although, it was alleged by the prosecution that the respondent has abducted the prosecutrix on 12.04.2012, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage and committed the sexual intercourse upon her, but from a bare perusal of her statement (Ex.P-17) recorded under Section 3 164 Cr.P.C., vis-a-vis, her (PW-9) statement recorded before the Court, it appears that she has left the house on the said fateful day on her own without intimating to anyone. She denied further in her evidence that the respondent has taken away from the lawful guardianship of her father while alluring her on the pretext of marriage. She has, thus, not alleged anywhere that the respondent has abducted her on the said fateful day on the pretext of marriage and committed sexual intercourse with her, as alleged by the prosecution. In view thereof, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him 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