1 2025:CGHC:37984-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 631 of 2019 Judgment Reserved on : 06.05.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 01.08.2025  Jitendra Dewangan, S/o Bisan Dewangan, aged about 33 years, R/o village – Hatkongera, Police Station – Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.). ... Appellant versus  The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Station House Officer, Police Station – Kanker, District – North Bastar kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. R.K. Pali, Advocate For Respondent : Mrs. M. Asha, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput (C A V Judgment) Per Rajani Dubey, J 2 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) and Special Judge (under POCSO Act, 2012), North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 23/2018, whereby and whereunder appellant Jitendra Dewangan has been held guilty for commission of offence and keeping in view the relevant provision of the POCSO Act, sentenced as described below :- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 498-A IPC R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. Under Section 6 of POCSO Act. Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo additional R.I. for 01 year. Under Section 10 of POCSO Act. R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional R.I. for 04 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, leading to conviction of the appellant 3 is that, Prosecutrix (PW-1) filed a written report (Ex.P-1) in Police Station - Kanker to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with appellant on 18.04.2008 according to social customs and rituals & after some time of marriage, the appellant had been harassing the Prosecutrix. Despite many efforts by the family members there was no change in the behaviour of the appellant and every day he used to abuse and assault the Prosecutrix. The Prosecutrix used to sit in the grocery shop of appellant in Hatkongera and also did sewing work. It was also averred in the complaint that the appellant used to snatch whatever money she earned from sewing for consuming liquor and after drinking liquor, he used to beat and abuse her, due to which she was completely fed up. The appellant tried to forcefully make her drink liquor and in the month of January, 2017, the appellant twisted her hand, for which she went under treatment which was gone done by the appellant. Similarly, the appellant had put chilli powder in her private part, thereafter, she came to her maternal home but after spending 15-20 days in her maternal home, she came back to her in-laws’ house, even then there was no change in his behaviour. The appellant used to extend threat that last time he had twisted her hand 4 but now he would break her neck and kill her. It has also been alleged in the complaint (Ex.P-1) that they have one son and one daughter out of their wedlock with whom also the appellant behaved indecently and pressurized complainant/Prosecutrix (PW-1) to have physical relation with him in front of their children and used to beat her on refusal, and while doing obscene acts, he holds his private part and showed it to the daughter. On the basis of above said complaint (Ex.P-1), an FIR No.114/2018 (Ex.P-2) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC was registered against the appellant. After obtaining consent of the Prosecutrix vide Ex.P-5, she was medically examined by the doctor (PW-6) who gave her report under Ex.P-10. Patwari prepared nazri naksha vide Ex.P-16. The statements of the Prosecutrix (PW-1) and victim were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P-4 and P-8 respectively. The appellant was medically examined vide Ex.P-22. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 498-A, 376, 323 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act. 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Judge has framed the charge against the appellant under Sections 498-A, 376 5 (2) (f), 323 of IPC & Sections 3 (a) read with section 4, Section 5 (l) read with section 6, Section 5 (m) read with section 6, Section 5 (n) read with section 6, Section 7 read with section 8, Section 9 (l) read with section 10, Section 9 (m) read with section 10 and Section 9 (n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act. 4. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court did not consider the facts and evidences available on record while passing the judgment. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court suffers from factual and legal infirmity and perversity so as to convict the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 6 of POCSO Act and acquit the charges of an offence under Section 376 (2)(f) and 323 of IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court did not consider the medical report of the prosecutrix and failed to consider the evidence of treating doctor, which clearly established that the case is based on false grounds, as such, the appellant deserves acquittal. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had not threatened or assaulted the prosecutrix/wife, whereas only on the basis of family dispute between husband and wife, the entire case has been made out by the wife on false and fabricated grounds just to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the conduct of the Prosecutrix. She is legally wedded wife of the appellant and they were residing happily, but due to some family dispute, the Prosecutrix/wife made a false report levelling serious allegation against the appellant just to reside separately from the appellant. Learned counsel also submits that even if the contents of written report (Ex.P-1) is taken on its face value, there is no single word about demand of dowry, which amply shows that the entire case is based on false ground 7 and concocted story, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the evidence of their children is not safe to rely being tutored by their mother/Prosecutrix (PW-1). The medical report of the Prosecutrix that she was forcibly sexually assaulted by the appellant also does not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the appellant deserves acquittal. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision dated 11.03.2024 of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police [Neutral Citation No.2024 INSC 193] 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted the accused- appellant and no interference is called for by this Court. The appeal has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that 8 charges under Sections 498-A, 376 (2) (f), 323 of IPC & Sections 3 (a) read with section 4, Section 5 (l) read with section 6, Section 5 (m) read with section 6, Section 5 (n) read with section 6, Section 7 read with section 8, Section 9 (l) read with section 10, Section 9 (m) read with section 10 and Section 9 (n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act were framed against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC, Sections 6 (on two counts) and 10 (on two counts) of POCSO Act & sentenced him as described in para 01 of this judgment. 10. It is not disputed in this case that the complaint/Prosecutrix (PW-1) is the wife of the appellant and both the victims are son (PW-2) and daughter (not examined before the learned trial Court) of the appellant. 11. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that the appellant is her husband and he was habitual of consuming alcohol. He used to commit maarpeet with her under the influence of liquor and upon making him understand by her in-laws, the appellant also used to commit maarpeet with his own parents. She has also stated that when she became pregnant, even then the appellant’s behaviour did not 9 improve. When the appellant’s behaviour did not improve, her in-laws told to reside separately and said that the appellant would improve his behaviour when laden with responsibility. This witness, in para 2, has also stated that even after the birth of her first child, there was no improvement in the behaviour of appellant. The appellant used to sit in grocery shop and would spend all the income earned from grocery shop on alcohol. She has also stated that whatever she earned from sewing, the appellant also used to spend her money on alcohol and on refusal, the appellant used to beat her. The appellant used to ask money from her family members also and drink alcohol, and when they refused to give money, he also used to beat them. She has also stated that when she used to go to fill water, the appellant used to abuse her and ask her that where was she going to show her clothes. This witness, in para 3 of her evidence, has deposed that when her child was little, the appellant used to remove his clothes, caress his body & private part and used to commit unnatural act. She has also stated that she used to tell about this to her in- laws but they were not believing this. The appellant, after removing her clothes at night, used to rub/scratch her 10 private part with finger due to which her private part used to swell and at the relevant time, their children remain awake. The appellant used to commit forceful intercourse with her while the children remain awaken and they have also seen it. The appellant used to show his private part to the children and asked them what is it. This witness has also stated in para 5 that in the month of January, 2017, her father-in-law Bisan Ram, uncle-in-law Sadhuram and others had come to her maternal home and told her that the appellant has improved his behaviour and they have come to take her on their own responsibility, thereafter her parents sent her with them to appellant. The appellant behaved properly for few days but he again started misbehaving with her. She has also stated that while she was engaged in doing household work, the appellant used to take her elder son in a room, and after removing his own and her son’s clothes, he used to put his private part in her son’s mouth and ask him to suck it. Her son had informed her about this act of the appellant many times and she had also seen this then she had assaulted the appellant with club. She has also stated that the appellant used to do same act with her daughter too. 11 12. PW-2 is the son of complainant/Prosecutrix (PW-1) and appellant aged around 9 years. The learned trial Court, after satisfying itself that the child witness is able to answer the question rationally, examined him. He has stated in para 2 of his examination-in-chief that the appellant used to show his hips (Kulha) and say to suck his private part and used to beat him when refused. He has also stated that the appellant also used to say his (this witness) sister to suck his private part too. The appellant used to remove his own and his (this witness) mother’s clothes and had sexual intercourse, which this witness and his sister had seen. He has also stated that the appellant used to insert his private part into his (this witness) anus, and when he informed about the said act of the appellant to his mother then mother opposed the act of the appellant and said him to prevent from doing so, then the appellant used to beat his mother. This witness has also stated that the police had taken him to Magistrate, Bhanupratappur, where his statement (Ex.P-8) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and he admitted his signature on ‘A to A’ part. 13. Khileshwari Dewangan (PW-3) is the mother-in-law of the appellant. She has stated that her daughter (PW-1) told that 12 the appellant used to harass her daughter under the influence of liquor. She has stated that the appellant used to run grocery shop. She has also stated that the family members of appellant separated him and her daughter and said that he would improve his behaviour when laden with responsibility. Even after delivery of first child of her daughter (PW-1), the appellant did not improve his behaviour. Her daughter (PW-1) used to maintain the family by doing sewing work and whatever money she earned, the appellant used to take it for liquor. The appellant used to commit maarpeet with her daughter (PW-1) and had twisted her hand. The appellant tried to make her daughter drink alcohol and had put chilli power in her daughter’s private part then her daughter along with children came to her maternal home. This witness, in para 3, has also stated that after 2-3 months, in-laws of her daughter had come to her house and took her daughter and children on their responsibility but after some months, her daughter again came back to her house and on being asked she told that the appellant has yet not improved his behaviour and he did indecent act with his own children. She has also stated that her daughter told that the appellant after removing his own 13 clothes asked his son to suck his private part as also caress his private part and commit maarpeet when refused. She has also stated that her daughter (PW-1) told her that she had seen the appellant putting his private part in his daughter's mouth and himself being naked was getting his private part sucked by his daughter, then she had assaulted him by club. This witness is not firmed in her cross- examination to what has been stated in examination-in- chief. 14. (PW-4) is the brother of Prosecutrix. He has also made similar statement as has been made by Prosecutrix (PW-1). 15. Prabha Dewangan (PW-5) has not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her but she denied all suggestions of the prosecution. 16. It is apparent from the evidence of Prosecutrix (PW-1) that her marriage was solemnized with appellant on 18.04.2008 and two children (one son and one daughter) were born out of their wedlock. She alleged that the appellant committed unnatural sexual act with his own son and daughter and tortured her. She being fed up with the behaviour of the appellant, left her matrimonial home and came to her 14 maternal home and thereafter she made a written complaint (Ex.P-1), on the basis of which an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the appellant. In her written complaint (Ex.P-1), Prosecutrix (PW-1) alleged only about showing his private part to his children. The relevant para 5 of the written complainant is being reproduced herein as under :- Þ;g fd] vkosfndk o mlds ifr dh lalxZ ls mudh nks larkus gS ftlesa ls ,d iq= o ,d iq=h gS ftudk uke rue; nsokaxu ,oa mez 9 o”kZ dk gS ,oa ferkyk nsokaxu tks fd 06 o”kZ dh gS ,oa nksuksa cPps xksfoaniqj ds ljLorh f’k’kq eafnj esa i<kbZ djrs gS vkosfndk dk ifr cPpks ds lkeus vkosfndk ls ‘kjhfjd laca/k cukus ds fy, ml ij ncko Mkyrk gS o euk djus ij ekjih djrk gS rFkk bruk v’yhy xkyh xykSt ,oa v’yhy gjdr djrk gS fd vkosfndk dk ifr ftrsUnz nsokaxu vius fyax dks iq=h dks idMdj fn[kkrk gS rFkk D;k gS crkvks dgrk gSA bl izdkj bruh xanh gjdr o vHknz O;ogkj djrk gS fd vkosfndk dk vius ifr ds lkFk jguk eqf’dy gks x;k gS ,oa vkosfndk dk ifr fdlh ckr dks ugh ekurk gS mDr ?kVuk ds laca/k esa vkosfndk us vius pkpk lk/kq nsokaxu dks ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crk;k rks mUgksus vkosfndk dks rqjar f’kdk;r djus dh lykg nh o vkosfndk vius ifr ds O;ogkj ls O;fFkr o ihfMr gksdj fnukad 5-3- 2018 dks vius ek;ds /kerjh vk;h vkSj ;g fjiksVZ is’k dj jgh gSAß 17. As per this written report (Ex.P-1), Prosecutrix (PW-1) left her home on 05.03.2018 and she filed the written complaint on 16.03.2018. 18. Ex.P-4 is the statement of complainant/Prosecutrix (PW-1) 15 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur (C.G.). In this statement, the Prosecutrix (PW-1) alleged that the appellant used to commit sexual intercourse with her in front of their children. The appellant used to ask her (PW-1) and children to hold his private part and put it in their mouth. If they do not do so, the appellant used to beat them. On the day of Holi, the appellant became necked and took off the clothes of her daughter and sat on her. Last year in the month of January, the appellant put chilli powder in her (PW-1) private part and tied her hands & tried to make her drink alcohol. The appellant also twisted her hand due to which her hand got fractured. The appellant put his finger in her private part and scratched with his nail due to which her private part got swollen. 19. Further, the statement of (PW-2), son of the appellant, was also recorded vide Ex.P-8 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur (C.G.), wherein he has stated that the appellant used to took off the saree of his mother (PW-1) & his clothes and used to sleep with her. The appellant used to ask his mother (PW-1) to suck his private part. The appellant also asked him to hold 16 his private part and asked his sister to suck it. The appellant used to ask him to suck his private part and asked them to put chilli on it. The appellant used to beat him, his mother and sister with a sewing machine under the influence of liquor, if they did not obey him. He also used to beat them with stick under the influence of liquor. 20. Most surprisingly, the prosecution in order to substantiate this much plea of the witnesses, has not filed any documentary proof much less the medical report of both the children. Thus, in absence of any documentary proof in this regard, it would be difficult for this Court to wholly reply upon their statements and we delve into the evidence of doctor. 21. Dr. (Smt.) Sarita Kumeti (PW-6) examined the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1) on 12.06.2018 but she did not find any external or internal injury on her body much less the private part and gave her report under Ex.P-10, according to which, the complainant was complaining irritation and pain in her vagina, but in cross-examination, the Doctor has admitted that the vaginal irritation can also be caused by some type of infection. 22. Complainant/Prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted in para 12 of her cross-examination that she did not file any report before 17 police station and complaint before society against her husband/the appellant & she herself stated that her father- in-law filed a complainant against her accusing her of theft. She was accused of theft in the month of March, 2008. Complainant (PW-1) further states that she was accused of stealing money from grocery shop and coming to her maternal home. She did not tell anything about her behaviour to anyone. Complainant (PW-1) has also admitted in para 16 that she did not file any report in any police station against the appellant regarding twisting and fracturing her hand in the month of January, 2017, and putting chilli powder in her private part by the appellant. In para 19 of her cross-examination, a question was put to this witness that while recording her written statement (Ex.P-4) before the Magistrate, she did not tell about the appellant putting his private part in the mouth of son and daughter and making them suck it, to which, she answered that at the time of recording her statement (Ex.P-4), her son and daughter were also present in the Court for recording the statement and she was asked to tell about the incident that had happened with her and with both the children, hence, she did not tell about the appellant making her children put his 18 (appellant’s) private part in their mouth and suck it. In para 24, she has stated that while recording her statement to police, she had stated that the appellant did the above act not only with her son but also with her 6 years old daughter that he used to take off her clothes and after taking off his clothes, he used to make her daughter suck his private part and he used to penetrate his private part and if the above fact is not recorded in her police statement, she could not tell the reason. 23. PW-2, son of the appellant, has also admitted in para 5 of his cross-examination that the police had taken his statement in Bhanupratappur. He did not tell the police that the appellant put his private part into his anus and his mother (PW-1) had seen this incident but if the said fact is not written in his statement (Ex.D-2), he cannot tell the reason. 24. It is clear from the aforesaid testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that they levelled several serious allegations against the appellant but in written complaint (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) and in statement of both the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur, under Ex.P-4 and P-8, all the allegations 19 are missing and it appears that they have exaggerated their statements. 25. Hon’ble Apex Court in Nirmal (supra) held in paras 13, 14 and 15 as under :- “13. This Court was tasked to adjudicate a matter involving gang rape allegations under section 376(2)(g), I.P.C In Ral Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court found totally conflicting versions of the prosecutrix, from what was stated in the complaint and what was deposed before Court, resulting in material inconsistencies. Reversing the conviction and holding that the prosecutrix cannot be held to be a 'sterling witness', the Court opined as under: "22. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. 20 There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the quality can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 21 (underlining ours, for emphasis) 14. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana ((2011) 7 SCC 130), this Court laid down that although the victim's solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix's testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae. It was held thus: "31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the sõlitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences. 32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by the 22 public prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant.” 15. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a "sterling witness" without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution's case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.” 26. In the present case, it is clear that there are many contradictions and discrepancies in the oral evidence of both PW-1 and PW-2. It is clear that PW-1 left the matrimonial home on 05.03.2018 and she stated about the occurrence of incident in the year 2017 but she lodged the FIR on 16.03.2018 after about three months and no plausible explanation has been offered regarding the delay. PW-1 has admitted this suggestion of defence in para 12 of 23 her cross-examination that in the month of March, 2018, her father-in-law made complaint against her accusing her of theft and went to her maternal house. In written complaint (Ex.P-1), Prosecutrix (PW-1) has not stated about any sexual assault being made by appellant with her son and daughter, and in police statement (Ex.D-1 and D-2), both the witnesses exaggerated some allegations and before the learned trial Court, son (PW-2) has stated about penetration in his anus, which is completely missing in his statements i.e. Ex.P-8 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and no medical examination of son (PW-2) and daughter was conducted by the prosecution to establish the factum of penetration of private part of the appellant in to the anus of PW-2. The daughter of complainant (PW-1) was also not examined before the learned trial Court as she was not in fit to give statement. 27. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has taken defence in question No.129 that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. His wife (PW-1) had stolen money from the grocery shop, jewellery from the house and taken it to her maternal home in Dhamtari, of which a social meeting was held, therefore, a 24 false report with the help of children was filed against him. 28. To substantiate this plea of the appellant, we have gone through the evidence of Smt. Prabha Dewangan (PW-5) who has also admitted this suggestion of defence in para 5 of her cross-examination that in the month of March, 2018, complainant (PW-1) had taken Rs.4 Lakh from the grocery shop of the appellant, jewellery from the house and went to her maternal home. She has also admitted that father of appellant, her father-in-law Douaram and Sadhu Ram had gone to the house of complainant (PW-1) and had a meeting there in this regard. This witness has also admitted in para 6 of her cross-examination that the complainant (PW-1) filed a report (Ex.P-1) when her (this witness) family members had gone to Dhamtari accusing complainant of theft. 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nirmal (supra) held in paras 19, 21, 25 and 26 as under :- “19. In the present case, the alleged sexual harassment transpired in a classroom. For corroboration of the victim's version, P.W.6 was brought in as a witness. Although declared hostile, a part of her testimony supports the allegation levelled by the victim, indicating that 25 the act of giving a flower became a topic of conversation among other students in the class. However, the other part of the prosecution's narrative, specifically that A-1 gave flowers and chocolate to the victim, lacked support in her testimony. Rather strangely, the prosecution made little effort or no effort to have the truth spoken to by P.W.10. Notwithstanding that appropriate questions were not put to P.W.10, we are inclined to form an opinion that if any untoward incident relating to a girl student of his school had taken place, it was P.W.10 who as the head of the institution would have been aware and as a priest would have disclosed. 20. xxxx 21. Taking a close look at the overall picture, the inference which could reasonably be drawn is that the prosecution's case has been marked by lackluster efforts, revealing a poorly executed endeavour that gives rise to substantial doubts regarding the integrity of the case. The material contradictions apparent in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, including the victim, significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution version. These inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, render it considerably doubtful. On the face of such evident discrepancies, recording conviction becomes untenable, as the foundation of the case 26 crumbles under the weight of doubt. While we might have chosen to overlook other contradictions and solely relied on the victim's account, considering her as a 'sterling witness', her version appears muddled and prevaricated, much less coherent. It is, precisely these inconsistencies and contradictions, which are material, that compel us to reject the case set up by the prosecution before the Special Court with which the High Court concurred adopting a flawed approach. 22. xxxx 23. xxxx 24. xxxx 25. Upon reviewing the record, we have no other choice but to hold that the circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn was not fully established. 26. We quite agree with the submissions of learned senior counsel for the State that an act of sexual harassment of a girl student (who is also a minor) by any teacher would figure quite high in the list of offences of grave nature since it has far-reaching consequences, which impact more than just the parties to the proceeding. At the same time, it is axiomatic that reputation is earned by a teacher upon rendering service over the years and an accusation like the present 27 would remain as an indelible mark marring his entire future life. Care has, therefore, to be taken so that his right to live a life of dignity and personal liberty are not put to jeopardy on the basis of half-baked evidence.” 30. If the facts of the present case are looked into in view of the afore-quoted judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nirmal (supra), it is clear that there are major contradictions, omission and exaggeration in the court statements of complainant (PW-1) and her son (PW-2) to that of their statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC, which cannot be taken for sustaining the conviction of the appellant and the benefit of doubt, of course, has to go to the appellant. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant and the learned trial Court did not appreciate the statements of important witnesses in its true perspective and recorded perverse and wrong finding. 31. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) and Special Judge (under POCSO Act, 2012), North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 28 23/2018 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 32. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (new section 481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 33. The Lower Court records along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE