STATE OF C.G. Vs. MANIRAM VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dtd. 30/12/2017 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Case No.60/2016, whereby, the respondent No.1-Maniram Verma has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Ss. 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC read with Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (In short "POCSO Act"), while respondent No.2-Parmeshwar Yadav has been acquitted for the offences under Ss. 366 and 368-A of IPC read with Sec. 21 of the POCSO Act.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a written report (Ex.P-6) was lodged by one Dinanath Sahu, who was husband of the prosecutrix, the minor, on 24/5/2016 before the Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, alleging inter alia, that his minor wife was alone at home on 22/5/2016 and has gone somewhere else without intimating to anyone else and it was revealed to him from his in-laws' that the respondent No.1-Maniram, while alluring her, has took her along with him to somewhere else. An enquiry was, thereafter, conducted, wherein, it was revealed that on the pretext of marriage, he took her away from the lawful guardianship of her husband and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-21) was registered against him on 24/5/2016 for the offence punishable under Ss. 363 and 366 of IPC in connection with Crime No.179 of 2016 and, during the course of enquiry, she was recovered from his possession on 24/5/2016 at Nagdha Chowk of Police Station Nandghat, as revealed from the Recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-1), who upon her recovery, narrated that the respondent No.1- Maniram, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, took her to his aunt's (Buwa's) house at Village Nagdha and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. The said respondent was then arrested on 24/5/2016 and stated that he took her away from the lawful guardianship of her husband, with the help of respondent No.2- Parmeshwar Yadav and after completion of the due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court against them for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 366, 368 and 376 of IPC read with Sec. 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act and based upon the materials available on record, the respondents have been charge-sheeted for the offences mentioned herein-above, which were denied by them and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the entries made in the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-20) held that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of occurrence of the incident. It held further upon considering her testimony that the respondent No.1-Maniram has neither abducted her, nor had made physical relations with her, nor the respondent No.2-Parmeshwar Yadav has assisted him for his alleged act and accordingly, they have been acquitted from the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred.