1 2025:CGHC:41463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 565 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Vinay @ Montu Netam S/o Late Vinod Netam, Aged About 22 Years R/o Near House Of Titu, Tikrapara, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : None present, though served. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 14/08/2025 1. This acquittal appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth, ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred by the Appellant / State against the judgment of acquittal dated 7th August, 2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2019 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 354, 324 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short”IPC”) and Section 8 of the Protection 2 of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act). 2. The brief facts, giving rise to file instant appeal, are that on 20.05.2019 the prosecutrix lodged a complaint before the Police Station against the respondent/accused stating therein that she is aged about 17 years & 8 months and is residing at Tikrapara, Dhamtari. It is alleged that on 14.05.2019 at about 5.00 PM., she, as usual, was returning back house from Tarini Beauty Parlour, at that time, the respondent/accused followed her and stated her that he loves her and he was giving mobile, when she denied to accept it, the respondent/accused put the mobile in her bag. Thereafter, respondent / accused pressed her breast with intention to outrage her modesty and also caught her left hand and attempted three to four times by sharp Nail cutter and thereafter, threatened to kill her, as a result of which, she sustained multiple injuries. She did not inform to the family members about the incident due to such fear & pressure. Thereafter, when on 20.05.2019, her mother saw the injuries sustained by her and asked her about the same, then she narrated the entire incident to her mother, thereafter, the report was lodged. The police registered the offence against the respondent/accused and took the matter under investigation. 3. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent-accused under Sections 323, 506 & 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and he was put to face charges before the trial Court. 4. In order to establish the charge against the respondents/accusd, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. The statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which respondent/accused denied the material appeared against 3 him in the case and pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. By the judgment impugned, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused persons of the offence under Section 354, 324 & 506 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act by extending him benefit of doubt. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that learned trial Court has erred in law in acquitting the respondent/accused of the alleged charges. The prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt. The statement of victim (PW-2) is of standing quality, which ought to have been believed by the learned trial Court. He submits that learned trial Court has committed error in law in giving much emphasis on the minor omission & contradiction, which may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the respondent/accused may be acquitted as charged and appropriate sentence may be imposed upon him. 7. Despite service of notice, none present on behalf of the respondent / accused to argue the case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 9. Star witness of the prosecution is Victim (PW-2). Though, to some extent, she has supported the case of the prosecution, but overall analysis of her evidence does not appear to be a sterling quality. Apart from this, there is omission in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to outraging her modesty by pressing her chest by respondent/accused. Learned Special Court while acquitting the 4 respondent/accused vide its impugned judgment has recorded a finding that victim & her parents have lodged report against the respondent/accused after a report lodged by mother of the accused/appellant against one of the witness namely – Ajay Gautam. After the alleged incident neither she returned the mobile given by the accused/respondent to him nor got it confiscated by the police. The victim herself has accepted that she did not protest or shout at the time of wrong act committed by the respondent/accused. Aforesaid witness – Ajay Chaudhari being the nephew of the victim's father and his frequent visits to the victim's house has been accepted by her. The victim has not made an allegation regarding pressing of breasts in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Similarly, the victim has stated in her cross-examination that she did not go to the beauty parlour for two days after the incident, whereas, her mother has given a different statement alleging that she followed a regular routine and went to the beauty parlour every day even after the incident. Furthermore, at the time of filing report, the victim had stated that she was attacked with a nail cutter by the respondent/accused , however, after examining her injuries, the doctor said that injuries sustained by the victim were self inflicted injuries. 10. From the perusal of evidence of witnesses, it reveals that there are two circumstances exist in this case firstly whether the criminal act was actually committed by the accused or after the mother of the respondent / accused filed the report, the report was filed against respondent/accused. It is clear from the evidence of the victim and her mother that the victim was not intimidated or threatened in any way by the respondent/accused. Further distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is about 1 kilometer and it may take about 10-15 minutes to reach there, but no explanation was given for the delay in filing the report 6-7 days after the 5 incident and the mother of the respondent/accused filed the report against witness Ajay Gautam, which creates suspicious circumstances in this case. It is settled legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taken one view favoured the accused, taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. 11. Law with regard to powers of appellate Court against the judgment of acquittal is no longer res integra. 12. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. 13. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala reported in (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal 6 cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re- appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 14. Applying the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in afore- cited cases to the facts of the case, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a plausible one therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court. 15. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the acquittal appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.08.23 18:12:07 +0530