STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. RUPENDRA DAS MANIKPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C."), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dtd. 27/5/2022 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Under POCSO Act), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.24/2019, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Ss. 354-D, 509 of IPC read with Sec. 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act") and under Sec. 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act").

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 14/10/2019, a written report (Ex.P-7) was lodged by the prosecutrix, a 15 years old, before the Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, alleging inter alia, that on the said fateful day, around 4:15 pm, when she was returning home from the School along with her friends, namely, Heena (PW-1) and Kajal (PW-2), the respondent/accused, came and shouted while expressing his love, saying "xxx I Love You" (xxx is denoting the name of prosecutrix). It is alleged further that previously also, she was harassed and misbehaved by him, for which, he was reprimanded and made him understood by the Teachers, but he did not stop and continuously harassing her.

(3.) Based upon the aforesaid complaint, an FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered by the concerned Police Station against him for the offence punishable under Ss. 354-D and 509 of IPC read with Sec. 8 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24/10/2019 and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dhamtari in connection with Crime No.500/2019 against the respondent for the offence punishable under Ss. 354-D and 509 of IPC read with Ss. 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, where, the charge has been framed under Ss. 354-D and 509 of IPC read with Sec. 8 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried.