Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33973-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 254 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Incharge Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) versus ... Appellant Samaru Ram Nishad, S/o Makhan Nishad, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Cherkadih (Jara), Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Ms. Laxmi Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 18/07/2025 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 23/11/2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court) Balodabazar (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.01/2017, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.07.21 11:08:44 +0530 2 under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 25/12/2016, a complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station, Palari, alleging therein, that on 22/12/2016, she was alone at home, as her parents had gone somewhere else and, in the afternoon around 12 P.M., the respondent/accused came and on the pretext of roaming her outside, took her by his cycle and kept her in his farm and committed sexual intercourse forcefully. It is alleged further that on the next day, i.e. on 23/12/2016 in the morning, she run away and came to home and disclosed regarding the alleged incident to her parents. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered on 25/12/2016 against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and during trial, her statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P-7 and was examined medically by Dr. Anita Verma (PW-11), but vide her report (Ex.P-22), she did not find any sign of recent intercourse upon her and observed further that her hymen was lacerated and duration of which, was shown to be at-least 2-3 weeks old and after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court for the offence mentioned herein-above and based upon the materials available on record, the charge under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was framed in connection with the Crime No.521/16, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the alleged incident and has failed further to prove that the alleged sexual intercourse was done by the respondent with her and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court, holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to the material available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2), has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of alleged crime as such. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent, who is the uncle of the prosecutrix, has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, the respondent has committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix 4 on 22/12/2016, when she was minor at the relevant point of time and was alone at home. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and it appears from her testimony, particularly paragraph 2, that the incident disclosed by her to be occurred on 23/01/2017 and, on the said date, she was taken forcefully by the respondent to the village Bardih, where he kept her at night, but has not committed anything with her and, on the next day around 4 P.M., he took her to the hut of his field, where he has committed wrong thing with her and two days thereafter, she returned home and narrated the entire story to her mother. It, however, reveals from her cross-examination, particularly paragraph 5, that the respondent has not taken her to any other place and, reveals further from para 12 of her testimony that, she has not gone to the village Bardih on 22/12/2016, or was returned on 23/12/2016 and, it reveals further that on 23/01/2017, the respondent has not taken her to his Badi/field. That apart, it was admitted by her that on 23/01/2017, he has not committed anything wrong with her. It is to be seen further that although it was stated by her that after returning from the village Bardih, she narrated the incident to her mother, but the mother, who was examined as PW-1, has, however, not supported her alleged version by saying that nothing was informed to her by her daughter. 9. Pertinently to be noted here further, as revealed from First Information Report (Ex.P-1), that the date of incident was shown to be 22/12/2016, but, as observed herein-above, the prosecutrix has, however, stated at para 2 that, it was committed on 23/01/2017. 5 Even otherwise, her alleged version was, however, not found to be supported by the statement of Dr. Anita Verma (PW-11), who examined her medically on 25/12/2016, as she did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse with her and even the hymen of her was found to be lacerated 2-3 weeks old and, even in the FSL report, human sperm was not found in the undergarment of the prosecutrix, which was recovered from her on 25/12/2016. In view thereof, it cannot be said that on 22/12/2016, the alleged incident was occurred with her, as alleged by her, in the report lodged on 25/12/2016. The prosecution has, thus, failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence, so as to hold that the respondent was involved in connection with the alleged crime and the trial Court has, therefore, not erred in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Kamde (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE