1 CGHC010240262026 2026:CGHC:31377-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1898 of 2026 State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Bhatgaon, Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Vinod Kumar Manikpuri S/o Mohar Say Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Bundiya, P.S. Bhatgaon, Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For State/Applicant : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23 .0 7 .202 6 1. Heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/applicant on I.A. No. No. 01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the instant petition seeking leave to appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the petition seeking leave to appeal is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Court of ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 learned District & Upper Sessions Judge (FTSC), Bhatgaon, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Special Session (POCSO) Trial No. 43/2024 in the matter of “State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Vinod Kumr Manikpuri”, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 137(2), 74, 75(i), 76, 65(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS, 2023’) and Sections 9, 10, 5(n), 4(2), 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) in connection with Crime No. 131/2024 registered at Police Station – Bhatgaon, District – Surajpur (C.G.) 4. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that a crime got registered U/s Section under Section 137(2), 74, 75(i) 76, 65(2) of the BNS, 2023 and under Section 9, 10, 5(dh), 4(2), 6 of the POCSO Act, in connection with Crime No. 131/2024, at Police Station-Bhatgaon, District-Surajpur, (C.G.) against the present accused respondent on the report of the victim's mother to the effect that on date 25.09.2024, she had lodged a written complaint vide Ex.P/05, she had gone to her brother-in-law's house with her family for the Jivitiya Karma Festival, where Jivitiya Karma was being performed through the night and on 26.09.2024, around 4.00 a.m., her daughter/victim was also sitting in the courtyard watching the Karma. After some time, when her daughter was not seen in the courtyard, her husband and other people started searching for the victim and when her husband was standing near the road, the victim came and asking that the accused Vinod 3 Manikpuri picked her up in his lap and took her to the garden and was touching her body after removing her lower garments.. 5. On the written complaint of the applicant Ex.P/05, the Police Station -Bhatgaon, District-Surajpur, C.G. registered FIR No. 131/2024 under Section 137(2), 74, 75(i) 76, 65(2) of the BNS, 2023 and under Section 9, 10, 5(n), 4(2), 6 of the POCSO Act against the present accused respondent. During the investigation, after obtaining the medical examination of the victim and accused, victim's statement U/s 183 BNSS was recorded. After inspecting the incident site, and the Patwari map of the incident site was obtained. The accused in the case, Vinod Kumar Manikpuri S/o Mohar Say R/o P.S.-Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur, C.G. was found to have committed the crime U/s 137(2), 74, 75(i) 76, 65(2) of the BNS, 2023 and under Section 9, 10, 5(n), 4(2), 6 of the POCSO Act and arrested on 02.11.2024. After investigation of the case, on the statement of the complainant, victim and witnesses evidence of the crime U/s sadar was found against the accused and charge sheet was prepared and is presented before the Court of learned District & Upper Sessions Judge (FTSC), Bhatgaon, District – Surajpur (C.G.) 6. In order to bring home the charges against the accused respondent, the prosecution produced the witnesses namely PW/1 father of the victim, PW/2 mother of the victim, PW/3 victim, PW/4 Dr. Dipak Kumar Singh, PW/5 Mangleshwar, PW/6 Pushpa Tirkey (Sub-Inspector), PW/7 Manish Kumar Shrivastava 4 (Patwari), PW/8 Rajni Singh (Head Constable), PW/9 Ashwani Pandey (Sub-Inspector), PW/10 Elder Father of the victim, PW/11 Elder mother of the victim, PW/12 Pappy @ Roshani Manikpuri, PW/13 Dr. Sakshi Soni PW/14 & 15 Dr. Rakesh Singh & Simran. 7. After appreciating the evidence on record learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent and, accordingly vide its judgment dated 16.02.2026 acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges. Hence this petition seeking leave to appeal. 8. Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ applicant vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has erred in law and on facts in recording the acquittal of the respondent by misappreciating the evidence available on record. The testimony of the victim has remained consistent on the material particulars of the incident, wherein she stated that the accused took her to the badi, lifted her clothes, and committed a wrongful act. She further argued that the version of victim is duly corroborated by the evidence of her parents regarding the circumstances immediately after the incident and the prompt disclosure made by the victim. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence, namely Ex. P-29, recording the victim's date of birth as 24.11.2017, which prima facie establishes that she was about seven years of age on the date of the alleged incident. However, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this evidence in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the 5 acquittal has been primarily founded upon alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, without examining whether such discrepancies were material enough to affect the substratum of the prosecution case. Minor variations in the statements of witnesses are natural and cannot, by themselves, justify an acquittal when the core prosecution case remains intact, She lastly submitted that it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, and accordingly, it is prayed that leave may kindly be granted so that the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment of acquittal may be examined on merits. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant/State and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present matter raises substantial and arguable questions warranting appellate scrutiny. 10. The principal contention of the State is that the learned Trial Court has misappreciated the oral and documentary evidence while recording the acquittal of the respondent. The testimony of the victim, the evidence of her parents regarding the prompt disclosure of the incident, and the documentary evidence relating to the age of the victim (Ex.P-29) are material pieces of evidence which, according to the State, have not been appreciated in their proper perspective. The Trial Court has also discarded the prosecution case by placing undue emphasis on certain discrepancies in the statements of witnesses without examining whether such discrepancies were material enough to affect the 6 substratum of the prosecution case. 11. It is well settled that while considering an application for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court is not expected to finally determine the merits of the case but only to examine whether the judgment under challenge discloses arguable grounds requiring consideration in appeal. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Supreme Court held that although an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, the appellate Court has full power to reappreciate the evidence where the findings of the Trial Court appear to be unreasonable or based on misappreciation of evidence. Likewise, in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, it was held that minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to reject otherwise reliable evidence. 12. In the present case, without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the prosecution case, this Court finds that the grounds urged by the State cannot be said to be devoid of substance. The issues relating to the appreciation of the testimony of the victim, the corroborative evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and the documentary evidence regarding the age of the victim deserve consideration in an appeal, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present is a fit case to allow application under Section 378(3) of the CrPC. 7 13. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the CrPC is allowed. 14. Office is directed to register the case under the head of “Acquittal Appeal”. 15. The CrMP is disposed of accordingly. 16. The acquittal appeal is also stand admitted. 17. Registry is directed to summon the Trial Court Record within a period of one week and prepare the paper-book on priority basis in accordance with the High Court Rules, 2007. 18. Let a bailable warrant for a sum of Rs.5,000/- be issued against the accused / respondent Vinod Kumar Manikpuri for his presence before this Court on 11th of August, 2026. Notice be served to accused/respondent through concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 19. List the acquittal appeal on 11.08.2026 for final hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra