1 2025:CGHC:32164 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 649 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant. versus 1 - Astik Singh @ Ajju Chouhan S/o Ajit Singh, Aged About 20 Years R/o Barakholi Rambhata, Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Accused) ... Respondent(s). For Appellant : Shri Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 11.07.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under the POCSO Act bearing No.01/2019 whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 509 of the IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth “the Act, 2012”). 2. Brief facts of case of the prosecution are that on 19.08.2018 at about 8.45 am in the morning when the minor prosecutrix (PW-1), aged about 17 AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.07.15 14:58:03 +0530 2 years, was taking bath in the bathroom of her house situated at Rambhata in Raigarh, the respondent/accused from the adjoining bathroom of the house belonging his father’s sister (बूआ), in a hidden manner, was taking photographs. When the victim saw the aforesaid act of the accused, she objected for the same but the respondent/accused told her that he would repeat such act and ran away. Thereafter, on the basis of written complaint (Ex.P/1) of the victim, FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered with the Police Station Raigarh Kotwali vide No.1089/2018 by PN Gupta, Sub Inspector (PW-2). Crime details form was prepared and the mark-sheet of the victim was seized in which her date of birth has been recorded as 03.07.2001. One mobile has also been seized from the respondent. Statement of the victim was recorded by Child Welfare Committee (CWC) on 23.10.2018. Statement of the witnesses were also recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. 4. Respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he has been falsely implicated and did not adduce any defence evidence. 5. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence this Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. He prays to allow the appeal and to convict the respondent/accused. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents annexed with the appeal with utmost circumspection. 8. In the case at hand, PW-1 deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 3 19.08.2018 when she was taking bath in the bathroom of her house, the respondent/accused, in a hidden manner, from the house of his father’s sister (बूआ) was taking photographs in his mobile, which annoyed the victim and when she objected the same, respondent/accused threatened to repeat such act in future also. Thereafter, victim lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) with the concerned police station, based on which, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered. Victim, in her cross-examination, categorically admits that earlier her sister has also made a complaint against the cousin brother namely ‘S’ of the respondent for sexual harassment. After 2-3 days of the said incident, brother of the respondent namely ‘S’ was released on bail. Thereafter, the victim has lodged an FIR against ‘S’ for committing rape with her. During counseling with CWC, victim stated that for 3 years she was in love relation with brother of the respondent namely ‘S’ who on assurance of marriage sexually exploited her. She further gave information that for about 4 months she resided in the house of ‘S’. In such backdrop, the trial Court evaluated the evidence that there is previous malice between both the families and on close examination, the statement was not found fully reliable. In particular, the Investigating Officer Prahlad Rathore (PW-4) categorically admits that during investigation he has not examined the seized mobile of the appellant through an Expert and even no photograph has been filed or proved during the trial. Even during the investigation no such photograph has been found in the mobile of the respondent as the investigator has not made any efforts to that effect. 9. Furthermore, the investigator also admits that in the spot map (Ex.P/3) he has not mentioned the position where from the respondent has taken the 4 photographs. 10. Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 11.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court, taking into consideration the infirmities in the prosecution's evidence, is of the view that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one which warrants no interference. 12.Resultantly, this Acquittal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash