1 2026:CGHC:17689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.103 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Sukhnandan Yadav S/o Shri Mahasingh Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Khamtarai Awaspara Near Kali Mandir, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Shri Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 17/04/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 01/11/2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/First Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.126/2020, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 354 of IPC read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to, ‘the Act, 2012’). SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.04.22 17:28:12 +0530 2 2. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix on 10/07/2020 in the night around 8.00 P.M. had gone to the nearby pump-house/hand- pump to fetch water where, the respondent came and caught hold of her hand with ill intention and has tried to outrage her modesty. On account of the alleged incident, her father lodged a written report (Ex.P-3) on 11/07/2020 before the Police Station- Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Act, 2012 and after recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent, who was then charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above and the trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, has acquitted him from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding the respondent innocent is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-4) and her father (PW-3) and mother (PW-1) has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him as such. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that, though it was alleged by the prosecutrix that when she went to the nearby pump-house/hand-pump in order to fetch water, the respondent had came and caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty, but the alleged of her allegation has, however, not found to be established. As, a bare perusal of her statement (Ex.C-1) recorded under Section 164 CrPC, would reveal the fact that the respondent has, infact, not caught hold of her on the said fateful day and, instead, was found to be standing behind her. Her version is, thus, found to be deviated from the alleged reports (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4) lodged by her father. Therefore, the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-4) that the respondent has caught hold of her hand when she went to the nearby pump-house/hand-pump for fetching water on the said fateful day at 8.00 P.M. cannot be relied upon as her alleged allegation is not found to be corroborated by her own statement (Ex.C-1) recorded under Section 164 CrPC. 7. Pertinently to be noted here further that, the father of the prosecutrix has stated in his evidence that the clothes of his daughter were torn on account of the alleged incident but in order to establish the alleged fact neither the torn-cloth was seized, nor the prosecutrix has stated as such, as observed herein-above. The alleged version of her father, thus, appears to be exaggerated in nature and cannot be taken into consideration for corroborating the alleged allegation of his daughter. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering further the statements of the prosecutrix and her parents, vis-a-vis, her 4 statement (Ex.C-1) recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it is difficult to hold that the respondent with ill intention has caught hold of her hand or has tried to outrage her modesty on the said fateful day, i.e. on 10/07/2020, so as to call for any interference in the judgment under appeal passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 9. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane