1 2025:CGHC:16998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 544 of 2024 • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ramanujganj Distt. Balrampur Place Ramanujganj. ...Appellant. versus • Ashok Kumar Ravi S/o Indradev Ram Aged About 20 Years R/o Gram Chiniya Police Chowki Vijaynagar, Thana Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)/Accused. For Appellant : Shri Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate with Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Ms. Seema Verma appears on behalf of Shri Uttara Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 11.04.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.09.2019 passed in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No.37/2017 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj District Balrampur place Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), whereby respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth “the Act, 2012”) for abetment of an offence defined under Section 16 of the Act, 2012. 2. Case of the prosecution is that father (PW-2) of victim namely M.S. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.04.15 18:22:10 +0530 2 lodged an FIR (Ex.P/5) with the Police Station Ramanujganj to the effect that the main accused namely Kaushar Ansari at 7:30 pm on 15.09.2017 abducted the minor prosecutrix (PW-1), aged about 12 years, from the lawful custody of her parents with intention to marry, perform sexual intercourse and also extended threat to kill her and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault to the minor victim. Present respondent/accused helped the main accused for commission of the aforesaid crime and at the time of occurrence he guarded the place of incident so that no one comes to help the victim. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Learned trial Court convicted the main accused and acquitted the respondent. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective though the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He prays to allow the appeal and convict the respondent/accused for commission of offence under Section 17 of the Act, 2012 for abetment of main offence, committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault to minor victim. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that there are serious infirmities in the statement of victim herself as on the one hand she would categorically depose at Para 6 of her statement that respondent/accused has not committed any wrong with her and on the other hand further depose only on assumption or presumption. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of occurrence a phone call was received in the mobile of main accused wherein, mobile number was displayed in the name of present respondent, therefore, she has inculpated 3 the present accused/respondent. The victim has admitted the said fact at Para 54 of her cross-examination. Hence considering such inconsistency which was duly recorded by the trial Court at Para 32 of the impugned judgment, order of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of evidence which does not require any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the appeal carefully. 6. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(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 admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. 7. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(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 cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, 4 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 than 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. 8. It is well established that the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, however, the High Court should only interfere when the reasoning of the trial Court is totally absurd. In the matter of Prandas Vs. the State [1950 SCC 62 : AIR 1954 SC 36] the aforesaid principle was reiterated after relying the leading case of Sheo Swarup Vs. Emperor [AIR 1934 PC 227] which provided the following guidelines:- "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility 5 of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice.” 9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the victim has categorically stated that the present respondent/accused has not committed any wrong with her and she admitted the said fact and only on the basis of assumption or presumption when a phone call displaying the name of present respondent/accused was received by main accused at the time of occurrence, she has named the present respondent/accused. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt for abetment of offence and the said finding is based on evidence available on record. 10. For the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible one. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court. 11.In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash