2026:CGHC:2915-DB Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ NAFR KUMAR RAJU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 668 of 2019 XYZ ---Appellant Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Incharge Officer, D. D.

Nagar, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.).

2 - Raju Masih S/o Late Manrakhan Masih, aged about 60 years, R/o Sarona, B. S. U. P. Colony, House No. 6 Block No. 11, P. / S. - D. D. Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.).

3 - Smt. Lalita Masih W/o Raju Masih, aged about 54 years, R/o Sarona, B. S. U. P. Colony, House No. 6 Block No. 11, P. / S. - D. D. Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.).

--- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Ms. Usha Chandrakar, Advocate.

ACQA No. 767 of 2019 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station D. D. Nagar, District -

Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus

1 - Raju Masih S/o Late Manrakhan Masih, aged about 60 years, R/o Sarona, B. S. U. P. Colony, House No. 6 Block No. 11, P. / S. - D. D. Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.).

2 - Smt. Lalita Masih W/o Raju Masih, aged about 54 years, R/o Sarona, B. S. U. P. Colony, House No. 6 Block No. 11, P. / S. - D. D. Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.).

--- Respondents For State/Appellant : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. G.A.

For Respondents : Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate.

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

Judgment on Board Per , Rajani Dubey, J.

19/01/2026

1. Since the questions of law and facts involved in both these appeals are similar, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These present acquittal appeals are preferred by the complainant/appellant in ACQA No. 668 of 2019 and the State/appellant in ACQA No. 767 of 2019 against the judgment dated 01.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act 2012) Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal POCSO Case No. 198/2018, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused Raju Masih of the charges levelled against him under Sections 376 (2) (i), 506 (II) of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and acquitted the co-accused Lalita Masih of the charges levelled against her under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/prosecutrix and the accused persons/respondents were residing in the same block, the accused persons were residing in the second floor, whereas the prosecutrix was residing in the third floor and the prosecutrix was familiar to the accused persons/respondents. On 12.10.2018, in Police Station D.D. Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.), the prosecutrix had lodged a written complaint against the respondents alleging that in the month of April, 2018 at 12.00 noon, when she went to the house of the accused persons/respondents, at that time the accused persons were present in their house, the co-accused Lalita Masih i.e., wife of the accused gave her a sweet and after consumption of the same, she got dizzy and fell unconscious. Thereafter, the accused Raju Masih made her lay down on the cot, tied her hands to the same and satiated his lust by committing forcible sexual intercourse upon her, whereas the co-accused was a facilitator of the crime, having witnessed the incident and remained silent throughout, thus helping her husband. Thereafter, the accused Raju Masih threatened the prosecutrix by saying that if she discloses about this incident to any other person then he will kill her mother, brother-in-law and sister, as such out of fear she did not disclose about the said incident to any person, however, after every 2-3 days the accused took her to his house and committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her and the wife of the accused always helped him to do so. Like this, the accused Raju Masih repeated the said act with the prosecutrix till 12.09.2018. On 03.10.2018 the prosecutrix felt sudden pain in he