1 2026:CGHC:7874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 118 of 2022 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Jai Singh Goutam @ Daddu, S/o Jogi Singh Goutam, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Motipur Ramnagar, Hanuman Gali, Behind Kabristan, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 12/02/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 12/07/2021 passed by the Upper Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.07/2020, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 354(B) of IPC, read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2026.02.12 18:46:35 +0530 2 Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2012’). 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 17/12/2019, a written report (Ex.P/3) was lodged by the father of the victim before the In-charge Police Station, City Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, alleging inter alia, that on the date of incident i.e. 10/12/2019, around 6.00 P.M. he was not at home and his daughter, i.e. the victim, was playing in front of the house and the respondent came and was touching the private parts of her body, owing to which, she started crying and upon hearing her noise, his wife came out from the house and, upon seeing her, he fled away from the spot. It is stated further that the alleged incident was informed by his wife on 17/12/2019, when the respondent was wandering near his daughter, the victim, and after asking and knowing about the incident from his daughter, the alleged report (Ex.P/3) was lodged and, based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P/4) was registered against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 354(B) of IPC and Section 12 of the Act, 2012 and after completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court against the respondent with regard to the alleged offence and based upon the materials available on record, the trial Court has framed the charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 354 (B) of IPC and under Section 10 of the Act, 2012 for violation of Section 9 (m) of the Act, 2012 and, the charge so framed, was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the victim and her parents, 3 held that since there are material disparity in their testimonies, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed the alleged offence on the said fateful day and accordingly, he was acquitted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent was not involved for the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the victim (PW-2) and her parents, have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in acquitting him as such. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P/3) was lodged by father of the prosecutrix on 17/12/2019 with regard to the incident occurred on 10/12/2019 at about 6.00 P.M. According to the alleged report, it was alleged by him that on the date of incident, when his daughter was playing in front of the house, the respondent came and has touched her private parts, owing to which she started crying and upon hearing her noise, his 4 wife came out from the house and after seeing her, he fled away. It, thus, appears from his alleged report (Ex.P/3) that he came to know regarding the alleged incident on 17/12/2019, when he was informed by his wife, however, it appears from his (PW-3) testimony that he came to know regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident in the night of the date of the incident itself. In view thereof, it cannot be said that he came to know regarding the alleged incident on 17/12/2019, as alleged by him in his report (Ex.P/3), nor any proper explanation was given by him as to why the report was lodged seven days after the occurrence of the alleged incident, despite knowing the alleged fact on the date of incident itself. 8. That apart, according to his wife (PW-1), the alleged incident was seen by her and who then took her said daughter inside the house and, fifteen days after the occurrence of the alleged incident, her daughter/victim has identified the respondent and then only, she informed regarding the alleged incident to her husband. There is, thus, material disparity in the statement of her with that of her husband (PW-3). What is, therefore, reflected from their testimonies that the parents of the victim have aware regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident, yet no report was lodged immediately thereafter and, instead it was lodged only on 17/12/2019, i.e. seven days after the occurrence of the alleged incident even without offering any proper explanation for it. 9. In so far as statement of victim (PW-2) is concerned, though it was stated by her that on the date of the incident, the respondent has touched private parts of her body, but her statement, as 5 observed herein-above, was, however, not found to be corroborated and, the trial Court, after taking note of those materials, 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. 10. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde