2026:CGHC:8752 Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA NAFR SHARMA Date:

2026.03.27

11:05:34 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 934 of 2024

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Mahendra Singh @ Rinku S/o Bhikham @ Raju Aged About 23 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Chantidih, Police Station Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shr i Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Judgment on Board

18/02/2026

1. The State has filed the present acquittal appeal against the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/First FTSC (POCSO), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, in Special Sessions Case No. 09/2018, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent/accused from the charge under Section 363 and 354 of I.P.C. and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the victim lodged a written complaint on 16.12.2017, to the police that his child has been molested on 15.12.2017. The written complaint made by the father of the victim is Ex.P/1. The police has registered the offence under Section 354 of IPC against the respondent/accused, who is Ex.P/2. The allegation in the FIR against the respondent accused is that on 15.12.2017 at about 11:30 pm, his daughter was crying near Jenas Palace and when she was being asked by the persons present there, she disclosed that one driver of the vehicle molested her and she made a gesture towards the respondent accused. Statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared by the Police. With respect to the age of the victim, one school register has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/10, and after retaining the attested true copy Ex.P12-C, the original register was returned to the school. The appellant was arrested on 16.12.2017, and his vehicle bearing No. JH10AM3074 has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. After completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the respondent accused for the offence under Section 363, 354 of IPC.

and Section 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, before the learned trial Court.

3. The learned trial court has framed the charge under Section 363, 354 of I.P.C. and Section 8 of POCSO Act. The respondents/accused abjured the guilt. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses in its favour. Statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which, he denied the circumstances that appears against him pleaded innocence and have submitted that on the date of incident his vehicle was booked in a marriage function and he had gone there. The father of the victim asked him to drop them to railway station and when he replied to drop them after having his dinner, they assaulted him while fleeing from the place he dashed with the victim by which she received injury on her face. Except this no incident was occurred on that day.

4. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has not found sufficient evidence for conviction of the respondent/accused and acquitted him from the charged offences vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.07.2021. Hence, the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses without there being any strong reason to discard their evidence. Learned State counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the father of the victim(PW- 1), the victim (PW-2) and the mother of the victim (PW-3). He would also submit that minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution w