STATE OF CHHATTISGARH vs BHUNESHWAR DHRUV

1
2026:CGHC:12803


2026:CGHC:12803
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 250 of 2021
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station
Churra, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
Bhuneshwar Dhruv S/o Samaru Ram Aged About 54 Years Resident Of
Village Mamulipara Churra, Police Station Churra, District Gariyaband
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For State/Appellant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment on Board
17/03/2026
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality
and propriety of the judgment dated 09/04/2021 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO and
Rape Matters) Gariyaband (C.G.) in POCSO Case No.73/2020 (Old

2
2026:CGHC:12803
Sessions Trial No.56/2019), whereby, the respondent has been
acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294,
342, 354-A(iv) and 509 of IPC read with Section 12 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as
“the POCSO Act”).
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that, based upon the oral
complaint received from the local residents of village- Kodema, Block
Development- Churra, District- Gariyaband, an enquiry was
conducted as per the instruction issued by the District Child Welfare
Officer, where it was found that, on 20/07/2019, the respondent, who
is the headmaster of Government Pre Middle School, Kodema, had
come to the school in intoxication stage and abused the girls, while
using filthy words and also by showing sexual remarks and confined
them into the room and after closing the door has started beating it
from the outside.
3. Based upon the alleged report (Ex.P/8), dated 27/07/2019 lodged by
one Mahendra Das Manikpuri, the Project Co-ordinator of Child Line,
Gariyaband, an FIR (Ex.P/9) was registered on 28/07/2019 against
the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 509
and 294 of IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act and, after
holding the investigation, the respondent has been charge-sheeted
with regard to the offence mentioned hereinabove, which was denied
by him and, claimed to be tried.
4. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the student of the

3
2026:CGHC:12803
concerned school, i.e., (PW-4) was examined and, according to her,
the respondent has stated that one Ram Sheela, a student, is his
girlfriend and deposed further that, he called her “I love you”, apart
from one Seema and Payal. It, however, reveals from para 8 of her
testimony, that he never used ill words against them and was always
keen for their progress.
5. According to PW-5, it appears that, the respondent called her as his
girlfriend, owing to which, she did not feel well, but according to her
cross-examination, it appears that, he always concerned about their
progress. According to PW-9, the respondent has stated that, PW-5
is his girlfriend and it appears further from her testimony that he has
said to commit rape upon her, though that was neither the
prosecution case, nor the aforesaid witnesses have stated so.
6. According to PW-11, the respondent called Seema, Payal and one
Kiran as his girlfriends and, it reveals further from her testimony that,
they locked themselves into the room and someone else was
knocking the door outside the room. Insofar as statement of PW-8, 11
and 12 are concerned, they turned hostile without supporting the
prosecution story.
7. From perusal of the aforesaid testimonies, it, thus, appears that none
of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the respondent was in
intoxication stage at the relevant point of time, nor has confined them
into the room, as alleged by prosecution. It reveals further that,
though it was alleged by the prosecution that he has used obscene

4
2026:CGHC:12803
words on 20/07/2019, but none of the witnesses have stated as such.
Therefore, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the
prosecution, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in
acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime,
so as to call for any interference in this appeal.
8. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Prashant