1 2026:CGHC:5137-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 308 of 2018 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Trikunda, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Ashok Khairwar, S/o Shri Ram Prasad, aged about 23 Years, R/o Village Gadgodi, Police Station Trikunda, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 30.01.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court under the POCSO Act, Ramanujganj, Civil District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 90/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and in alternative under AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.01.31 16:17:46 +0530 2 Section 376(2)(i) of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) by extending the benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.08.2015, victim lodged a report at Police Station Trikunda, Balrampur, alleging that accused/respondent, on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her on several occasions i.e. from October, 2014 till 29.07.2015. It was further alleged that when the victim insisted upon marriage, accused/respondent refused to marry her and discontinued contact with her. On the basis of the said report, FIR (Ex. P-2) was registered against the accused/respondent. 3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-6. Consent letter of the victim (Ex.P-4) was obtained and she was sent for medical examination, where Dr. S.T. (PW-7) examined her and did not find any injury on her person either internally or externally and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P12. Vide Ex.P-14, two vaginal slides of victim were seized. Seized articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-21), no human spermatozoa was found on the seized articles. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court. Accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charges leveled against him. 3 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the accused/respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of PW-2/victim, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the accused/respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and perused the material available on record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. The present case is based solely on the evidence of PW-2/victim. A bare perusal of her testimony would show that she herself has turned hostile, as in her statement before the Court, she categorically stated that accused/respondent did not commit any sexual act upon her and that she lodged the report only because the accused/respondent did not marry her. Likewise, father of the victim (PW-1) and mother of the victim have stated that the victim did not inform them about any such incident and that the report was lodged by victim only because the accused/respondent did not marry her. This apart, PW-7 Dr. S.T., who 4 medically examined the victim did not find any injury on her person either externally or internally. Since the victim/PW-2 herself turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, is justified in acquitting the accused/respondent of the said charges, which calls for no interference. 10. Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh