1 2025:CGHC:28321-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1983 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Nagarnar, District- Bastar C.G. ... Applicant versus Pritam Manjhi S/o Kamal Lachchhan Manjhi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Manjhiguda, P.S. Kotpad, District- Koraput (Orissa) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 27.06.2025 1. I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 163 days in filing the appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed. 2. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.27 18:35:54 +0530 2 judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2024 passed in Special Sessions Case No.47/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Pritam Manjhi) by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C.) (POCSO Act), Bastar at Jagdalpur, whereby learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent from offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) and in alternative Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the applicant/State submits that the defaults as pointed out by the Registry have been removed and photocopy of record of the trial Court has been filed, which is taken on record. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim is the sister of the accused's friend and the accused use to visit the house of the victim frequently, he started conversation with the victim and according to the prosecution story, the accused forcefully through himself upon the victim and established physical relation with the victim allegedly around the month of July 2016. Upon consistent refusal from the victim, the accused promised the victim to marry her, after attaining the age of 18 years. The accused established physical relations with the victim for about one and a half years promising that he will marry her, but when the victim got pregnant, the accused gave her a pill to induce abortion. When the victim refused, the accused threatened her that he would not marry her, instead of bearing his responsibility and keeping his promise he escaped and entirely cut ties with the victim. It is further alleged by 3 the victim that nearly after one and a half years later when, the accused was going to school the accused abducted her and took her to Nawarangpur, where the accused forcefully established physical relation with the victim. During that period the family of the victim came to know about the incident, consequential thereto the accused took the victim to Borima and raped her. After returning to home, the victim informed her family members and subsequently, the victim lodged complaint before the Police of Police Station - Nagarnar. 5. On the report of the victim, first information report under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act has been registered and concerned Police started enquiry collected materials against the accused, recorded the statement of the witness, victim was medically examined and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court for trial. 6. To prove their case, the prosecution has examined as well as 10 prosecution witness and other relevant documents relating to the crime, who ever examined and cross examined by the respective counsels. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as defence, the Special Judge acquitted the accused. Hence, this leave to appeal. 7. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the applicant/State submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge is illegal, improper and incorrect and is liable to be set aside. Learned Special Judge is not justified by discarding the evidence without there 4 being any strong reason to discard the evidence of the prosecution. He further submits that learned trial Court has failed to call the judicial mind over the facts of the present case as the ingredients of offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC Act has been clearly made out against the accused and the trial Court committed grave error of law while acquitting the accused person/respondent. He also submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of victim (PW-1) who was minor at the time of first incident in the year July, 2016 because the date of birth of the victim is 13.03.2001 which is proved by the document submitted by the prosecution as in the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P-7) the date of Birth has been mentioned as 13.03.2001, which is proved by Smt. Durga Verma, (Assistant Teacher) (PW-2) and mother of the victim (PW-4) and Father (PW-5). According to the documentary evidence, the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of first incident (i.e. July, 2016). He contended that learned learned trial Court should have considered that the consent of the victim was immaterial because she was minor at the time of first incident. Learned Trial Court also failed to consider the evidence of PW-3 who is the step mother of the victim, who has clearly stated in her deposition in para 5 that the accused made a physical relationship with the victim by giving false promise of marriage, since July 2016, which was narrated by the victim to her. Similar facts was narrated by the mother of the victim (PW-4) before the trial Court which were ignored. He further contended that learned trial Court failed to consider the evidence of Dr.Govind Singh (PW-10), who examined the 5 victim for determination of her age through radiological test and found that on 12.10.2016 when he examined the victim she was above 15 years and below 18 years of age, which proves that at the time of first incident i.e. July, 2016 the victim was minor. He also contended that learned trial Court overlooked the case of the prosecution and evidence against the respondent by which the case of the prosecution is fully established against him beyond any reasonable doubt, but learned trial Court has overlooked this aspect and passed an order in mechanical manner which is bad in law and liable to be dismissed. As such, leave to appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the applicant/State and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. Learned trial Court while acquitting the respondent has observed in para 53 that there are many discrepancies in the statements of the victim and her family members, but even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the accused had physical relations with the victim on the date of incident, then it is shown in this regard that the victim herself has stated in her FIR (Ex.P-1) that after being introduced, both of them started loving each other. The victim’s adopted mother has also accepted that the victim and the accused took a rented house in Navrangpur, Odisha and stayed there for 15 days and the victim and the accused had a love affair. The victim’s father has also accepted that the victim had a love affair with the accused and both the victim and the 6 accused had eloped. The victim’s maternal uncle has also accepted that the accused and the victim lived in his house like husband and wife for about 15 days and after that they eloped and went to Odisha. The trial Court also observed in para 54 of its judgment that it is clear from the statements of the above prosecution witnesses that the victim had a love affair with the accused and both lived like husband and wife and both ran away together. As per the above, it is clear that on the date of incident, the victim had physical relations with the accused with her consent. Whereas it has already been made clear in the case that the victim was an adult of more than 18 years of age on the date of incident. 10. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 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 7 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." 12. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu