1 CGHC010141352022 2026:CGHC:29920-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 758 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Parpa, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... applicant(s) versus Rajat Bose S/o Khirod Bose Aged About 19 Years R/o Negiguda, Kotwalpara, Behind Shivanand Ashram, Ps- Parpa, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For applicant / State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15. 07.2026 2. Heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Applicant/State. 3. The present application for grant of leave to file an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.16 14:52:49 +0530 2 been filed by the Applicant/State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC/ Special Court (POCSO), Jagdalpur, Dist Bastar (C.G.) in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No. 20/2019, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 342, 376 (A)(B), 506 Part II of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/State would submit that the victim is aged about 7 years. On 18/03/2019, at about 5.30 PM, when she was playing hide and seek game, the respondent-accused forcefully dragged her inside his house, bolted the door, committed sexual assault, and criminally intimidated her into silence. On 20.03.2019, when the mother of the victim (PW-1) observed that the victim is limping in acute pain and when she asked about the same, the victim disclosed about the incident, thereafter the report has been lodged by the mother of the victim. The evidence of the victim does not suffer from any infirmity or inconsistency. The age of the victim has not specifically challenged by the respondent-accused, in the examination of her vaginal swab, semen and sperms were found in FSL report (Ex-P/15). The DNA report matched with the vaginal swab of the victim as well as blood of the respondent-accused was also found matched in DNA report available in the case, which duly proved the involvement of the respondent-accused in the alleged offence and the victim was subjected to rape by the respondent- accused. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has considered the delay of two days in lodging the report as the substantial delay whereas under the facts and circumstances of the present case and evidence available on record, there is no delay. The incident occurred on 18.03.2019 and the FIR has been lodged on 21.03.2019. The learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent- accused on the ground of delay in lodging the 3 report, the counseling with the victim by Child Welfare Committed has been denied by her parents and there was a previous quarrel between the father of the victim and mother of the respondent- accused. The learned trial Court has also considered that there was no external injury found on the body of the victim, however, the injuries is always not necessary to be inflicted in the body of the victim and thus, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused disbelieving her substantiated evidence as well as evidence of her parents and other material witnesses. The impugned acquittal suffers from manifest illegality and gross miscarriage of justice as the learned trial Court erroneously appreciated the evidence available on record. Since the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are palpably perverse, unjust, and bad-in-law, there is sufficient material and evidence on record to grant leave to file an acquittal appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant/State and perused the judgment of the trial Court. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant/State and upon perusal of the record, particularly the testimonies of PW-1 (mother of the victim), PW-2 (victim), PW-6, the medical evidence, the FIR (Ex. P-1), and the other evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are satisfied that arguable grounds are made out for re-appreciation of the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that leave to file an acquittal appeal deserves to be granted in favour of the applicant/State. 7. Accordingly, the application under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to file an acquittal appeal is allowed. 8. The Office is directed to register the case under the head of "Acquittal Appeal." 4 9. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. 10. The acquittal appeal is admitted and connected with Acq.A. No. 264/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika