1 2026:CGHC:5505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 255 of 2021 1 - Balram Sahu S/o Pardeshi, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Sukuldaihan, Police Station Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ram Avtar, S/o Shri Raghunandan Dewangan, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sukuldaihan, Police Station Lalbah, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajesh Dewangan, S/o Shri Raghunandan Dewangan, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sukuldaihan, Police Station Lalbah, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Raghunandan Dewangan, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sukuldaihan, Police Station Lalbah, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Khilendra Sahu, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 : Shri Hrishikesh Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No.2 to 4 : ShriAshwell Franklin, Advocate. NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.01.31 18:37:04 +0530 2 SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 31/01/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 25.09.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.53/2018, whereby respondent No.2 – Ram Avtar has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 341 read with Section 34, 294 (two counts), 323 (two counts) and 506 Part II of IPC, read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’), while respondent No.3 – Rajesh Dewangan and respondent No.4- Ramesh Kumar under Sections 341 read with Section 34, 294 (two counts), 323 (two counts) and 506 Part II of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written complaint (Ex.P.- 16) was lodged by the complainant before the Police Station Lalbagh (Agriculture), Rajnandgaon alleging, inter alia, that on the date of the incident, i.e., on 20.10.2018, he was called by the Patwari of the concerned Village for demarcation of his land, owing to which, he along his daughter (prosecutrix) and his cousin Purrau went to his field and, at the time of returning from the field, they were restrained by the respondents, who started assaulting them, while using filthy words and threatened to kill. It was alleged further that respondent No.2- Ram Avtar has torn the clothes of his daughter and pressed her chest. Based upon the alleged allegations, the respondents have been 3 charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above in connection with the Crime No.408/2018. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the complainant’s daughter was examined as PW-5 and in her statement, it was stated that, while returning from her field along with her father and uncle – Purrau, they were abused and assaulted by the respondents with filthy words, who have also threatened them to kill. Further of her testimony would show that respondent No.2 - Ram Avtar has torn her clothes and pressed her neck and chest and was trying to commit a vulgar act. It, however, appears from her cross-examination, particularly, para 10, that the alleged incident was occurred because of the demarcation of the land in question and when the accused persons were assaulting, she was trying to escape herself and was not aware what each of the respondents was doing and, it reveals further from her testimony that the respondents have also lodged the report against them, but, later on, stated that she was not aware regarding the alleged report. Although, it was deposed by her that on the alleged date of the incident, she was trying to be outraged by respondent No.2- Ram Avtar and her father was assaulted by them as such, but her statement is, however, not found to be corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses, as the Revenue Inspector – Pritam Chandrakar (PW-1) had deposed that some quarrel took place between the complainant’s daughter and some women and in his cross-examination, it was deposed that no quarrel was taken place between the complainant’s daughter and the respondents. In so far as Amardas Manikpuri (PW-2), who was the Kotwar of the concerned Village, is concerned, but he was, however, not aware what had happened with the complainant’s 4 daughter. Besides, it appears further from the testimony of Lillu Das (PW-4), the Patel of concerned Village, that quarrel was, in fact, found to be taken place between the complainant’s daughter and some women of the respondents' family and, the complainant’s daughter was assaulted by their wives. Father (PW-7) of the prosecutrix, though, reiterated the alleged allegations, as made by him in his written report (Ex.P-16), but was, however, not found to be established, as observed herein-above. 4. Pertinently to be noted here further that the complainant’s cousin – Purrau was also with them, but for the reasons best known to the prosecutrix, he was not examined. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the respondents are involved for the commission of the alleged crime. 5. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Nikita