1 2026:CGHC:5405-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 505 of 2018 The State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus Domendra @ Hari Sahu S/o Bhakturam Sahu, aged about 19 years, R/o Ward No. 2, Pikari, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 31/01/2026 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.06.2018 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Case/FCT Case No. 71/2017, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charge Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 under Sections 363, 366-A and Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated are that on 12.10.2017 the complainant at Saja Police Station lodged an oral complaint alleging that his minor daughter had been lured and abducted by the accused Domendra Sahu. As such, on the basis of the oral complaint, the crime was found to have occurred and hence the Police Station registered a named F.I.R. against the accused Domendra Sahu under Crime No. 374/17 for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the investigation, a spot map vide Ex. P/02, spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex. P/03 and also Recovery Panchnama were prepared vide Ex. P/06. Thereafter, a documented Panchnama was prepared. The medical examination of the victim and the accused was conducted. The mark sheet and the School admission Register/ Dakhil Kharij Register of the victim/prosecutrix were seized and the statement of the victim/prosecutrix was recorded before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate and before the Child Welfare Committee under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, statements of necessary witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and charges were framed against the accused/respondent. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present accused/respondent before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial 3 Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the offence under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent of the offences levelled against him. The learned trial Court has not justified by giving too much significance to the minor omissions and contradictions that appeared in the prosecution evidence, especially that of the victim (PW-03) who narrated that the entire incident happened with her. Learned trial Court has not justified in holding the victim/prosecutrix to be a consenting party in light of specific allegation made by the victim regarding her kidnapping whereas the prosecutrix herself has admitted the commission of offence by the accused/respondent. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence of Dr. Nidhi Meshram (PW-12) in its correct perspective, who medically examined the prosecutrix and affirmed the commission of sexual assault. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its true perspective and has succumbed to the conjectures and surmises. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the victim was minor, aged about 14 years, 07 months and 05 days at the time of occurrence of the fateful incident which has been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 4 5. Per contra, learned counsel for accused/respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court upon due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence rightly acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges levelled against him, as such, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the accused/respondent under Sections 363, 366A and Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of all charges on this ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. PW-03, the prosecutrix/victim testified that she is studying in Girls School, Saja. She further stated that she saw the accused/respondent for the first time at her brother’s vegetable shop, she used to talk to him and after passage of some time, she became friend with the accused/respondent. She further stated that they both went to Dhamdha together and stayed in Dhamdha School, which was closed. After two days, Naresh Sahu, the brother of the accused/respondent went to Dhamdha in search of them and brought them back to Bemetara. Upon reaching Bemetara, he called the father of the prosecutrix and thereafter, the acquaintance of her father came and took the prosecutrix back to her home. The prosecutrix again started going to her school and also started communicating with the 5 accused/respondent on mobile phone which was given to her by the accused/respondent after returning from Dhamdha. She further stated that they again planned for going out and on the date of incident, as her parents were not at home, she met the accused/respondent near her school, from there they took a bus to Dhamdha and after reaching there, they again stayed at the school. On the next day, they took bus to Tilda and stayed at the railway station. At night, the brother of the accused came in search of them and brought them back to Bemetara and from there to Saja. Upon arriving Saja, the brother of the accused took them to the police station where her father and others were present and then her father lodged report against the accused/respondent. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross- examined her, but she denied all suggestions of the prosecution, including that she had eloped with the accused under the pretext of marriage. She further explicitly stated that she accompanied the accused of her own free will and admitted to the defense's suggestion that the accused/respondent did not elope with her. 9. PW-01, father of the prosecutrix/victim and PW-02, mother of the prosecutrix/victim have stated that their daughter is aged about 15 years and she was born in the year 2003. The police came to their house and prepared a spot map of their house vide Ex. P/02, further the police seized progress report of Class 7th as per seizure memo vide Ex. P/04 and the progress report is Ex. P/05 and PW-01, the father of the prosecutrix/victim admitted his signature on A to A part of Ex. P/04 & Ex. P/05 and also admitted his signature on seizure memo of the school admission register vide Ex. P/11 & Ex. P/12. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted this 6 suggestion of prosecution that the accused/respondent eloped with his daughter and committed rape upon her. 10. PW-02, mother of the prosecutrix/victim has stated that her daughter did not tell her anything at the police station as to why the accused took her and what he did with her, she later disclosed that the accused had called her and taken her away. 11. PW-07, Lakshminarayan Singh, Principal of Saraswati Gyandeep Mandir has stated that the police seized School admission register vide Ex. P/19 and he admitted his signature on A to A part of the same and as per this Register, date of birth of the prosecutrix was registered as 07.03.2003 and her name was entered in serial No. 173. In para 4 of his cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that at the time of entry of date of birth of the prosecutrix/victim, no relevant document was produced by the parents of the prosecutrix. He further conceded that, for those lacking formal documentation, date of birth are often approximated by parents. 12. It is clear the prosecution has failed to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix/victim and the prosecutrix’s statement apparently indicates that she did not state against the respondent, as she explicitly stated she accompanied him of her own free will. 13. PW-12, Dr. Smt. Nidhhi Meshram, examined the prosecutrix, but she did not find any external or internal injuries, as such, no definite opinion can be given regarding recent sexual intercourse, her report is Ex. P/35. 14. It is evident that the learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly finds that the prosecution 7 has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused/respondent and acquitted him of the aforesaid charges. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011) in case of 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.” 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or 8 perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 17. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE U.K. Raju