1 2026:CGHC:2316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 164 of 2023 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kanker, District : North Bastar Kanker,Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Bhupendra Kumar Verma S/o Khedu Ram Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Shivpuri Jamul, Police Station Jamul, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Jangalvar College Kanker, Singarbhath, Dumarpara Kanker, Police Station Kanker, District- North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/Appellant: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate Victim (PW-1) : Appears Through video conferencing and stated not to take any action against the respondent. Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 14/01/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.15 10:51:11 +0530 2 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 31/01/2023 passed by Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.96/2021, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 323 (three times) of IPC read with Section 3(1)(b) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989”). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the aforesaid offences based upon the allegation levelled by the victim (PW-1) as well as two others on 05/09/2021, wherein, it was alleged that, on the date of incident, i.e. 05/09/2021, when she (PW-1) was sweeping in front of the house around 04:00 P.M., the respondent- Bhupendra Kumar Verma, the Constable, who is residing adjoining to the house, came with ill intention and caught hold of her waist from the backside and after taking her in his house laid down on the bed and was pressing her chest and also beating her by hands and fists. It was alleged further therein that, she somehow escaped her from his clutches and fled away and, immediately informed the alleged incident to one Anjali Markam. Further of the alleged report would show that the alleged incident was seen by her children, namely, Yugant Netam and Ku. Khushali. 3 3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the victim was examined as PW-1, but she has, however, not supported the alleged of her allegation as was levelled by her on 05/09/2021 as, according to her, the respondent has done nothing with her and, in fact, she got annoyed when quarrel took place with him and, therefore, the alleged report was lodged and has denied the alleged allegation specifically in her cross-examination as well. Besides, the alleged incident, as revealed from her alleged report (Ex.P/1), was seen by her children, namely, Yugant Netam and Ku. Khushali, but, both were not examined, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, so as to hold that on the said fateful day, the respondent had entered into the house and has outraged her modesty, as alleged by her. 4. Insofar as the statement of PW-2, the another victim, who also lodged the alleged report along with her, is concerned, it appears that, on the said fateful day, the respondent- Bhupendra Kumar Verma was assaulting one Anjali @ Padmani Markam, who also lodged the report along with them, and, when she (PW-2) intervened the matter, he assaulted her on her cheeks and has pressed her neck and, in order to save herself, she has cut his fingers by her teeth, owing to which, he ran away. She has, however, not stated that on the said fateful day, the respondent entered into the house and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim (PW-1). 4 5. Anjali @ Padmani Markam, who was examined as PW-3, though stated that, on the said fateful day, she has seen that the respondent- Bhupendra Kumar Verma has entered into the house and has tried to outrage the modesty of the victim but, the alleged of her version cannot be relied upon as, according to the alleged report (Ex.P/1), she was infact informed by the victim (PW-1) regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident. She was, therefore, not present on the spot, so as to place the reliance upon her testimony in order to attribute the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime. Even, according to their MLC reports, marked as Exs. P/12, 13 and 14, it appears that no external injuries were, however, found on their bodies, nor even the doctor, who treated them, was examined. 6. In view of the aforesaid background and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has, therefore, not erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Prashant