1 2025:CGHC:26961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 599 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balauda, Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Ritik Kumar Kaiwart S/o Dileram Kaiwart Aged About 19 Years R/o Korbi, Ward No. 11, Police Station Balauda, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL For Respondent : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee and Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 23/06/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Special Session Case No.28/2020, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 456, 354 of the IPC and Section 8 PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.25 14:13:45 +0530 2 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix is a 16 year old girl and she resides with her maternal uncle (PW-5) in the village where she attended school. It has been further averred that for the last one year, the respondent was stalking the prosecutrix and on the date of the incident i.e. 21.02.2020, at night, about 9 PM, when the prosecutrix was at the home of her maternal uncle, the respondent/accused entered into the house through the back door and touched the body of the prosecutrix with bad intention of outraging her modesty. When the prosecutrix raised a hue and cry, her maternal uncle R (PW-5) reached there and caught hold of the respondent/accused. Thereafter, other relatives of the prosecutrix, S (PW-2), BN and grandmother (PW-6)) also appeared and the accused has repent for his misdeed. Thereafter, the prosecutrix returned to her mother’s village and lodged a written complaint vide Ex- P/1. In pursuance of the said complaint, on 27.02.2020, FIR (Ex-P/2) was registered at Police Station Balauda. In the school register, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded as 12.07.2004 and the school register (Ex-P/6) was seized from the Headmaster (PW-8) of the School. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. During trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents and 1 article. The respondent/accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the 3 CrPC stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and further stated that the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix put a fire on the cart (thela) of his maternal uncle because of which he has lodged a false FIR and not examined any defence evidence and exhibited one love letter (Article-1) in the handwriting of the prosecutrix, which has been admitted by her mother (PW-7). 4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, though the respondent/accused was caught red-handed by the maternal uncle and the trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the version of the maternal uncle and the prosecutrix, therefore, he prays to allow the Appeal and convict the respondent/accused. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would support the impugned judgment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Indisputably, the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-7) has admitted the fact that her daughter had written a love letter in the name of the accused vide Article-1. Further, one of the witnesses, SK (PW-2), who, at the relevant time of the incident, was present in the house of the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, stated that one meeting had been held at the house of PW-5 and when PW-5 went towards the courtyard (Angan) of 4 his house, he heard the noise of the prosecutrix and when he reached her, he found the respondent/accused and the prosecutrix inside the room and thereafter, it was revealed that there was romantic relationship between the prosecutrix and the respondent/accused. 9. 9. From the aforesaid facts and evidence, it is vivid that when the maternal uncle caught him red-handed, the prosecutrix, after seeing her maternal uncle, raised a hue and cry and the said fact was witnessed by one of the witnesses, SK (PW-2). 10.Considering the aforesaid evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 456 and 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. 11.It is well settled that when two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken [see Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773]. 12.Resultantly, this Acquittal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka