Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.24 16:50:33 +0530 2025:CGHC:48860 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 165 of 2022 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). versus ... Appellant 1. Manharan Kurre S/o Chandrakumar Kurre, Aged About 27 Years, 2. Sidharth Kurre S/o Late Rajkumar Kurre, Aged About 19 Years, Both Are R/o Tenduwa, Chowki Junapara, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant/State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 23/09/2025 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 10/06/2021 passed by the First F.T.S.C. (POSCO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Special Trial 2 No.92/2019, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 354-C, 506 Part-II of IPC and 67-B of Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as “the POCSO Act”). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, a written report (Ex.P/6) was lodged by the prosecutrix, a minor girl and a student of 9 th class, on 11/06/2019 before the outpost Junapara of Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, alleging inter alia, that on 22/05/2019 at noon, she went to the field, in order to answer the call of nature, where, the respondents, namely, Manharan and Sidharth and one Chandrasekhar Banjare, the juvenile, have obtained her photographs from their mobiles and when she intervened the same, they started outraging her modesty and threatened to kill, if she disclosed the matter to her parents. It is alleged further that after sometimes, her father was informed by others regarding the fact that the photographs of his daughter have been viraled, then upon enquiry being made by him on 10/06/2019, it was narrated the entire incident to him by his said daughter and, based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P/7) was registered by the concerned Police Station. 3. During the investigation, Dakhil Khariz Register and progress report of the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement (Ex.P/8) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, the touch screen mobile owned by respondent No.1-Manharan was seized vide Ex.P/10 on 11/06/2019, in presence of two witnesses, namely, Shyam LaL and Ashok Koshle, while one more mobile was seized from the respondent 3 No.2-Sidharth on the same day vide Ex.P/11 in presence of the said two witnesses. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge- sheet was submitted before the trial Court, where the charges mentioned herein-above have been framed against the respondents, which were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents, while two witnesses has been examined by the respondents in their defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that since there is material disparity in the statement of prosecutrix and her mother regarding her presence alone at home and in absence of the photographs of her, the respondents have been held to be innocent in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly they have been acquitted and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State, while inviting attention to the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her father (PW-1) and her mother (PW-9), submits that the evidence led by them were not scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. Mr. Ayush Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while referring to the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her mother (PW-9), submits that the prosecutrix was, in fact, alone at home on the said fateful day and, therefore, it cannot be said based upon her sole testimony that on the said fateful day, she had gone to the field, in 4 order to answer the call of nature and, contended further that though the prosecutrix has deposed in her evidence that she has seen her photographs in the mobile of one Virendra, but the said person was, however, not examined, therefore, in view of such circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P/6) was lodged by the prosecutrix on 11.06.2019 with regard to the incident occurred on 22.05.2019. According to the said report (Ex.P/6), it appears that on the said day, i.e. 22.05.2019, the prosecutrix was alone at home and had gone to the field, in order to answer the call of nature where photographs of her were obtained by the respondents along with one Chandrashekhar, the juvenile and, it appears further from the alleged of her report that when she opposed, she was threatened by them to kill, if she disclosed the incident to her parents. Although, it was alleged by her that she was alone at home on the said fateful day, but in her evidence it was, however, deposed by her that her grand maternal aunt was utilizing the toilet, therefore, she had gone to the field. But, her statement was neither found to be corroborated by her own statement (Ex.P/8) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also by the statement of her mother (PW-9). As according to her said statement (Ex.P/8), it appears that she was alone at home and similar is the fact reflected from the statement of her mother (PW-9). There is, thus, disparity in her statement and, 5 therefore, it cannot be said that she was not alone at home or was compelled to attend the call of nature in the field because her grand maternal aunt was utilizing the toilet at the relevant point of time. 10. It is to be seen further, as evidenced from her statement that she has seen her photographs in the mobile of one Virendra of the concerned village, but for the reasons best known to the prosecutrion, he was, however, not examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix has seen her photographs in the mobile of said Virendra. 11. Perusal of the record would show further that although the mobiles were recovered from the respondent No.1-Manharan vide Ex.P/10 and from Sidharth-respondent No.2 vide Ex.P/11, in presence of two witnesses, namely, Shyam Lal (PW-4) and Ashok Koshle (PW-5), but both have, however, not supported the alleged seizures from them. That apart, Investigating Officer, who examined the mobiles seized from them have, however, not found any objectionable articles from the said mobiles. The statement of the prosecutrix and the allegations as was alleged by her, thus, not found to be supported by other corroborative piece of evidence. 12. Moreover, it reveals from a marriage card, marked as Ex.D/2, that the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with one Bharat of village Sonbandha on 19/02/2020, but the parents of the prosecutrix have, however, deposed in their testimonies that they were not known to him irrespective of the fact that they have solemnized the marriage of their said daughter with him. Their testimonies, therefore, cannot be relied upon in order to implicate the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. 6 13. In view of the aforesaid background and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call from any interference in this appeal. 14. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Prashant