1 2026:CGHC:8390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 177 of 2022 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Suresh Kumar Yadav S/o Laxmi Prasad Yadav, Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Service In Hotel R/o Village Budhikhar, Police Chowki Malhar, P.S.- Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 17/02/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 19.12.2019, passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.02.17 17:06:02 +0530 2 Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.124/2017, whereby the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354-D of IPC read with Sections 7/8 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 the written complaint (Ex.P.-1) lodged by the prosecutrix on 01.11.2017, wherein it was alleged that when she was going to school on 30.10.2017 along with her friend Shobha Yadav and cousin Jyoti Sahu, the respondent came and obstructed her way while pulling her stole and caught hold of her hand and was trying to outrage her modesty for the last four months and based upon her alleged allegation, he was charge-sheeted as such. 3. In order to establish the the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and it was stated by her that on the said fateful day, i.e., 30.10.2017, when she was going to the school along with her friend, namely, Shobha Yadav and cousin Jyoti Sahu, she was trying to be outraged by the respondent by pulling her stole and that by caught hold of her hand. She deposed further that despite her resistance, he was not leaving her hand and her stole was pulled by him, but the said fact was, however, not reflected from her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. Besides, her statement is also not found to be corroborated by her said friend Shobha Yadav (PW-2) and cousin Jyoti Sahu (PW-6), so as to place upon her testimony in order to attribute the involvement of the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime . 3 4. That apart, during the course of the argument, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with the respondent on 11.01.2021 and out of their wedlock, two children have born, as evidenced by the marriage certificate and the birth certificate of the children and, are living happily. 5. In view of the aforesaid background and, particularly when the testimony of the prosecutrix was not found to be corroborated by other eyewitness, I, therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal, so as to call for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Nikita