2026:CGHC:2367-DB NAFR NAFR NAFR NAFR NAFR NAFR NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 431 of 2018 Pramod Singh S/o Bindeshwar Singh Aged About 48 Years Occupation – Driver, R/o Village - Oatgan. Thana - Newra, Tahsil - Tilda, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur (C.G)

--- Appellant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur, District -

Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Pintu Nishad S/o Shri Dhaniram Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Oatgan, Thana - Newra, Tahsil - Tilda, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ACQA No. 234 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-

Newra, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Appellant Versus Pintu Nishad S/o Dhaniram Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village-

Oatgan, Police Station- Newra, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent For Appellant/complainant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Appellant/State : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer For Respondent/accused : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ Judgment on Board (15^th January, 2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated

14.9.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raipur in Special ST No.369/2017 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.10.2017 complainant/father of the prosecutrix lodged a report to the effect that at the time of Navratri, the respondent/accused had given a mobile phone to his minor daughter/prosecutrix, aged 14 years, in which he recorded the conversation with her and later took back the said mobile from her. Thereafter, he started threatening her of defaming by uploading the said voice recording in Whatsapp and Facebook and on this threat, he made forcible sexual intercourse with her twice. When he again insisted for physical relation, she informed about all this to her mother.

03. During the course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded, her school certificates were seized vide Ex.P/8, Dakhil- Kharij register of the school was seized vide Ex.P/17 and her medical examination was done. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act was filed against the accused.

04. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act against the accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 08 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. He examined one Uma Nishad as DW-1.

05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges by the impugned judgment. Hence these appeals.

06. Learned counsel for the appellant/State and learned counsel for the appellant/complainant jointly submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. The prosecutrix in her statement u/s 164 of CrPC categorically stated about the forcible sexual intercourse by the accused knowing the fact that she is minor. Learned trial Court based on the basis of oral and documentary evidence though held the prosecutrix to be minor on the date of incident but despite that acquitted the accused of the charge under the POCSO Act. Learned trial Court committed an illegality in discarding the evidence of the prosecutrix which is duly supported by the evidence of her mother (PW-3), father (PW-2) and th