1 2026:CGHC:1099-DB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full - 08-01-2026 - 09-01-2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 376 of 2025 XYZ (Details Filed In Closed Envelop) ... Appellant/Victim versus 1 - Sagar Gupta S/o Jitendra Prasad Gupta Aged About 20 Years R/o Ghutrapara, Ambikapur, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh - Accused 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 None. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ Judgment on Board (08th January, 2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J The appeal is listed for hearing on admission. However, with the consent of the parties, it is heard finally. 02. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 1.7.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Raipur in Special POCSO Case No.25/2025 acquitting respondent No.1/accused of the charges under Sections 65(1), 64(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 5(l)/06 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 03. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that mother of the prosecutrix lodged a report on 28.2.2025 to the effect that on 25.2.2025 her daughter, aged about 13 years and 10 months, informed her that the accused has been talking to her over mobile phone for the last two years on the pretext of being in love with her and marrying her. On 22.1.2025 the accused called her to an agricultural field which was refused by her. However, on 20.2.2025 when she (mother of the prosecutrix) with her husband went to Mahakumbh at Prayagraj and the prosecutrix was at the house of her female friend, the accused 3 went there at night, mixed something in cold drink, made her drink the same and thereafter had forcible physical relation with her. The complainant further stated that the accused used to force the prosecutrix to meet him and on her refusal, he would threaten to kill her and her entire family. On this report, the aforesaid offence was registered against the respondent/accused and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against him before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. 04. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 65(1), 64(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 5(l)/06 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 04 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of all the charges by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 4 06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother and father. The prosecutrix has categorically stated as to the manner in which the incident occurred. Though there is some discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses but the same being minor and irrelevant, the learned trial Court ought to have ignored the same. As regards delay, learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that in cases of offence like rape, the prestige of family is at stake and therefore, some delay in lodging report would not be fatal. Therefore, considering the overall evidence on record, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondent/accused is liable to be held guilty of the charges leveled against him and sentenced accordingly. 07. Learned counsel appearing for the State has duly assisted the Court. 08. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the accused was charged under Sections 65(1), 64(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 5(l)/06 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act by the learned trial Court and after appreciation of oral and documentary 5 evidence he is acquitted of all these charges by the impugned judgment. 10. PW-1 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident while she was standing outside her house, the accused reached there and proposed for marrying her when she turns above 18 years and thereafter he moved away from there. She admitted her signature on consent letter Ex.P/1, Patwari Map Ex.P/2 and Panchanama Ex.P/3 as also on her statement Ex.P/4 before the Magistrate from A to A part. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined where she denied her police statement Ex.P/5 and other suggestions. However, in cross-examination she admitted that there is love affair between the accused and herself. 11. PW-2 mother of the prosecutrix and PW-3 father of the prosecutrix state that when they returned from Allahabad, their daughter/prosecutrix informed that the accused proposed her for marriage when she gets above 18 years and except this, the prosecutrix did not tell them anything. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined where they denied all the suggestions of the prosecution. 12. From the aforesaid evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother and father it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the charges leveled against the accused. The Hon’ble Apex 6 Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, considering the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, it is crystal clear that 7 the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse or intimidated by the respondent/accused. None of the witnesses including the prosecutrix supported the prosecution case at all. The prosecutrix even denied to have made any statement before the police. Thus looking to the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court was fully justified in recording a finding of acquittal in favour of the respondent/accused and there is no scope for any interference by this Court. 14. In the result, the appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.01.09 11:20:01 +0530