1 2025:CGHC:30429-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2082 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kotwali District Bastar At Jagdalpur C.G. --- Petitioner versus Lakhan @ Golu Sen S/o Late Bharatlal Sen Aged About 28 Years R/o Aadawal Police Lines, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar C.G. --- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 4 .7.2025 1. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 196 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 judgment of acquittal dated 5.9.2024 passed in Special Session Case BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.04 17:44:34 +0530 2 No.66/2022 (State v. Lakhan @ Golu) by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C) (Under the POCSO Act), Bastar at Jagdalpur, whereby learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent/accused from offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent/accused has sexually exploited the victim (PW-4) on the pretext of marriage more than one time. On 25.08.2021 the respondent/accused has firstly on the pretext of marriage committed rape with the victim in the bathroom and thereafter, he has regularly committed rape with her on the pretext of marriage on various occasions and later on, refused for marriage. As a result, the victim has lodged written complaint against the respondent, in which the Police has registered the offence and started investigation in the matter. 4. After due and necessary investigation the charge sheet was filed before the competent Court and the respondent was put to face charges before learned Trial Court. Having been so charged the respondent adjured the guilt. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses in its favour. In order to prove the age of the victim, the prosecution has submitted documentary evidences, i.e. School Admission Register (Ex.P/17), where her date of birth is mentioned as 07.10.2005, hence, on the date of incident, i.e. 3 28.05.2021, she was a minor girl of 18 years. This evidence was unchallenged before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the statement under section 164 of CrPC of the victim has been recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, where she has stated about the incriminating act and how she was subjected to sexual exploitation by the accused. Her medical examination was conducted by Dr. Kiran Chandekar (PW-07) and MLC report was exhibited as Ex.P/13. The statements of other witnesses have been recorded by the prosecution. 5. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Trial Special Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused and therefore, acquitted him from the offence charged vide impugned judgment dated 05.09.2024. Thus, this appeal on the following grounds. 6. Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant/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 being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the prosecution. He further submits that learned Special Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the victim is a minor girl of below 18 years and she has categorically stated about the incriminating act of the respondent, therefore, the statement of the victim is sufficient to convict the respondent. He also submits that the prosecution has produced school admission register/mark-sheet, which under the light of the 4 judgment Janrail Singh is sufficient to prove the age of the victim as well as the defence has failed to disprove the document Ex.P-17, thus, the impugned Judgment is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. He contended that learned Special Judge ought to have considered the statement of the victim, where, she has constantly stated that, she was being subjected to sexual assault by the respondent. She has clearly stated that, on the date of incident, the respondent made proposal of marriage and then forcibly committed rape with her in the bathroom. However, learned Special Judge overlooked the statement of the victim and acquitted the respondent, which is illegal and liable to be set-aside. He further contended that learned Special Judge ought to have seen that the evidence with regard to date of birth of the victim, which clearly shows that, on the date of incident she was a minor girl, however, the learned Special Judge ignored the same and acquitted the respondent from Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He also contended that as per the medical evidences, i.e. MLC report and FSL report (Ex.P-30), it is not established that the victim was subjected to rape, however, in the statement of the victim as well as statement of PW-3, it is revealed that the victim was subjected to sexual assault/rape. Therefore, leave deserves to be granted. 7. We have heard learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the applicant/State and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. Learned Special Judge while acquitting the respondent/accused 5 has observed that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the statements of the victim and her parents are contradictory. Also, there are many shortcomings in the prosecution’s case. Due to the above reasons, many doubts arise in the prosecution’s case. As such, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. From the entire above discussion, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/respondent between 28.08.2021 to 15.11.2022 committed rape on the minor victim by having sexual intercourse with her on more than one occasion by luring her with the promise of marriage. 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Special Judge, acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 10. 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 6 probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 11. 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