2026:CGHC:12084-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1037 of 2022 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jamul, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s)

versus Jagan @ Satish Pizyani S/o Nihal Chandra Aged About 22 Years R/o Qutr. No. C 78 Block, Near Chhota Nalanda School, Housing Board, Police Station Jamul, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For State/Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

13.03 .2026

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State.

2. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 01.12.2021 passed in Special Sessions Case (POCSO Act) No. 238 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN

BRIJMOHAN MORLE

MORLE Date:

2026.03.13

+0530

Judge, Third Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the “learned trial Court”), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent trial Court acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable under Section 509, 354 (?k) of the IPC & under Section 12 of the Prevention of Childresh from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) and under Section 354 of the IPC & U/s 8 of POCSO Act and under Section 376 (2)(>) of the IPC & under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

(i) On 17.03.2016, the complainant / mother (PW-4) of the victim lodged a complaint in the Police Station Jamul, Distt. Durg alleging that she lives at Ghasidasnagar, Qutr. No. 32. She alleged that on 17.03.2016 her daughter informed her that the accused/respondent, with ill intention, always touched her breast, chick and body and saying her I love you, caught her anywhere. The victim (PW-3) also informed that on 01^st February the accused/respondent, in the newly constructed house, was doing obscene acts with her. When the complainant told that why she has not informed earlier, the victim said that the accused/respondent has said to not inform the incident anyone. The Police registered the case and took the matter under investigation. The Police recorded the statement of the witnesses and seized the caste certificate of the victim. The victim was sent for medical examination, after getting consent.

(ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused and the respondent/accused was put to face charge before the learned trial Court. The respondent/accused abjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses in its favour.

(iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2021, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent/accused by unjustifiably discarding the evidence of the complainant without assigning any cogent, convincing, or substantial reasons. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to consider that, for proving the age of the victim, the admission register (Ex.P/3), wherein the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 25.03.2004, has not been rebutted by the defence. He further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the statement of the victim (PW-3), wherein she stated that on the date of the incident one Kasturi called her to her house for playing Carrom. When she reached the house, Kasturi called the accused/respo