1 2026:CGHC:25858-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.166 of 2017 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Amarkant Jaiswal S/o Shri Krishna Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 22 Years R/o Old Bazar, Chalgali, Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Sachchidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Shri Arvind Sinha, Advocate D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 24/06/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 09/02/2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court (under the POCSO Act), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No.04/2015, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.06.24 18:00:44 +0530 2 under Section 377 of IPC read with Section 3(a) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above based upon the report (Ex.P-1), dated 23/07/2013 lodged by the mother of the victim before the Police Station Chalgali, wherein it was alleged that her minor son had gone to the school on 05/07/2013 along with his friend, but, on the next day, he said that he will not go to the school and has disclosed the reasons for it after 4 days, i.e. on 09/07/2013 that while returning home on 05/07/2013, along with his friend in the evening, he was sexually harassed by the respondent, who was a teacher, while committing unnatural sex (sucking penis) with him. 3) Although, it was alleged in the said report by the mother of the victim as such, but, from perusal of the statement of her said son (PW-2), it appears that though it was alleged by him at para-1, that the alleged illegal act (sucking penis) was committed by the respondent but was, however, not found to be stuck in his cross-examination, as it was stated by him at para 6 that nothing was happened with him, except that he was assaulted by the respondent twice. His friend (PW-3), who was accompanied with him on the said fateful day, has also stated, more or less, in the same lines and stated specifically at para-3 that no incident as such was happened. 4) Pertinently to be noted here further that much prior to the lodging of the alleged report (Ex.P-1) by the mother of the victim on 3 23/07/2013, a report (Ex.D-1) was lodged by the victim’s father on 13/07/2013 pertaining to the same incident, but has not alleged as such, as was alleged in the said report (Ex.P-1) and, instead it was revealed from his said report (Ex.D-1) that on the said fateful day, his son was assaulted twice by the respondent and for which, the Ishtagasa (Ex.D-2) for maintaining the peace in the area was made under Sections 107 and 116 (3) of Cr.P.C. 5) Thus, from the stretch of any imagination, it is difficult to hold that the respondent has harassed the victim unnaturally as alleged by his mother in her report (Ex.P-1) lodged on 23/07/2013, much after the occurrence of the alleged incident, and the trial Court, after taking note of those materials has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 6) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Tumane