1 2026:CGHC:12803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 250 of 2021 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Churra, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Bhuneshwar Dhruv S/o Samaru Ram Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Village Mamulipara Churra, Police Station Churra, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 17/03/2026 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 09/04/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO and Rape Matters) Gariyaband (C.G.) in POCSO Case No.73/2020 (Old PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.18 10:41:49 +0530 2 Sessions Trial No.56/2019), whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 342, 354-A(iv) and 509 of IPC read with Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that, based upon the oral complaint received from the local residents of village- Kodema, Block Development- Churra, District- Gariyaband, an enquiry was conducted as per the instruction issued by the District Child Welfare Officer, where it was found that, on 20/07/2019, the respondent, who is the headmaster of Government Pre Middle School, Kodema, had come to the school in intoxication stage and abused the girls, while using filthy words and also by showing sexual remarks and confined them into the room and after closing the door has started beating it from the outside. 3. Based upon the alleged report (Ex.P/8), dated 27/07/2019 lodged by one Mahendra Das Manikpuri, the Project Co-ordinator of Child Line, Gariyaband, an FIR (Ex.P/9) was registered on 28/07/2019 against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 509 and 294 of IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act and, after holding the investigation, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned hereinabove, which was denied by him and, claimed to be tried. 4. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the student of the 3 concerned school, i.e., (PW-4) was examined and, according to her, the respondent has stated that one Ram Sheela, a student, is his girlfriend and deposed further that, he called her “I love you”, apart from one Seema and Payal. It, however, reveals from para 8 of her testimony, that he never used ill words against them and was always keen for their progress. 5. According to PW-5, it appears that, the respondent called her as his girlfriend, owing to which, she did not feel well, but according to her cross-examination, it appears that, he always concerned about their progress. According to PW-9, the respondent has stated that, PW-5 is his girlfriend and it appears further from her testimony that he has said to commit rape upon her, though that was neither the prosecution case, nor the aforesaid witnesses have stated so. 6. According to PW-11, the respondent called Seema, Payal and one Kiran as his girlfriends and, it reveals further from her testimony that, they locked themselves into the room and someone else was knocking the door outside the room. Insofar as statement of PW-8, 11 and 12 are concerned, they turned hostile without supporting the prosecution story. 7. From perusal of the aforesaid testimonies, it, thus, appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the respondent was in intoxication stage at the relevant point of time, nor has confined them into the room, as alleged by prosecution. It reveals further that, though it was alleged by the prosecution that he has used obscene 4 words on 20/07/2019, but none of the witnesses have stated as such. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 8. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Prashant