1 2025:CGHC:30080-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1594 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dipka, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Abc, Nil Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.07.2025 1. It transpires from the order dated 23/08/2024, that due to an inadvertence, the application filed by the State for grant of leave to appeal has been admitted though only record of trial Court was summoned and no bailable warrant was issued, the paper book has already been prepared, hence, we proceed to hear the State on leave to appeal. 2. Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for leave to appeal. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.05 12:57:06 +0530 2 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 4. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2023 passed in Special Case No. 17/2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Katghora, District:Korba, C.G. whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO) has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix used to live with her family on rent in the house of the respondent, due to which, she knew to each other. During that time, when the respondent told her that he likes and loves the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix accepted it. Both of them used to talk daily, then the respondent told the prosecutrix that he wants to elope and get married. Thereafter, the prosecutrix, without informing her family, went to Kala Garden Dipka at about 12:00 in the night where the respondent was waiting for her and both of them were sitting together in the garden. During that time, the respondent started to touch her body and said that he would marry her and despite her refusal, the respondent had forcibly made physical relations with her and asked her to stay at night in the house of his friend. Next day at 6:00 a.m. she went to Bilaspur and both of them met at the bus stand and from there, they went to railway station. When the prosecutrix came to know that her parents were coming to look for her, then both of 3 them went to Pendra and thereafter reached to Delhi by train on 11-04-2021 and visited Red Fort Garden and came to the railway station at night, then the mother of the prosecutrix called on the mobile of the respondent and told that her health was bad, then on 13-04-2021, both of them came from Delhi to Bilaspur and from there the prosecutrix came to her home. After coming home, the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her parents and thereafter, offence was registered against the respondent. 6. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and there was no defence witness. Statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein he has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and he is innocent. 7. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 30.11.2023 acquitted the respondent/accused herein from the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence, which was clearly established by the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution had submitted sufficient material evidences which prima- facie establish an offence under section 363,366,376 of Indian Penal Code & Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, however, the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the material 4 evidences and acquitted the respondent, which is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 9. We have perused the judgment passed by the trial Court along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal with utmost circumspection. 10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge FTSC(POCSO), Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 as follows:- “36.in para-9 of the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has admitted that while giving statement to the police, she had said that she stayed at night in the house of her friend and had gone to Bilaspur by bus at 6.00 a.m. the next day and had met the respondent at the bus stand, whereas there is no such fact in her cross-examination. Rather, she has said that she had gone to Kala Garden at 4.00 a.m. on the date of the incident and from there, she had gone to Bilaspur with Om, who is the friend of respondent on a motorcycle. Thus, there is a significant contradiction in her statement. 37. The prosecutrix herself has stated that she had given a false statement to the police at the behest of respondent, but according to her statement, it is manifest that she herself had gone with the respondent, that is why she did not seek help from anyone at Kala Garden and then during the journey from Bilaspur to Delhi and even while staying in Delhi, she did not try to get any help from the police. Therefore, the entire evidence proves that the prosecutrix 5 was a consenting party and she made physical relation with the respondent by her own will 38. Thus, from the entire evidence mentioned above, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent kidnapped the prosecutrix for the purpose of marrying her or having illicit sexual intercourse with her without her and committed the crime of rape and penetrative sexual assault with her against her will. 39. Therefore, the respondent is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act," 11. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 6 12. In the present case, the victim herself stayed with the appellant and without informing her family members, went to Kala Garden Dipka at about 12:00 in the night where she stayed with the appellant in the garden and from there, both of them went to Delhi by train. It is manifest that the victim was a consenting party. Had she been forcefully raped her against her will or consent, she would definitely raised alarm or to make complaint to the anyone. 13. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/State and other evidence available on record, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record. We do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and consequently, acquittal appeal is also dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib