1 2025:CGHC:35218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2143 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sarangarh District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Damodar Kurrey S/o Late Atwaru Kurrey, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Dumardih (Kotri), Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Present District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). ... Respondent For State/Petitioner : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Respondent : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2024 passed in Special Criminal Case No.05/2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act), Sarangarh, Sessions Circle Raigarh, Civil District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.24 15:56:47 +0530 2 from the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond doubt. 3. The prosecution's case is based on a written report lodged by the victim/prosecutrix at Police Station Sarangarh, wherein she alleged that on 29.03.2021, the day of the Holi festival, she had visited her maternal uncle's (Mama's) house and subsequently proceeded to a nearby pond to bathe, accompanied by her maternal aunt (Mousi). On the way to the pond, the accused allegedly intercepted her, started molesting her, dragged her, and forcibly applied color on her. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, and during the investigation, upon finding sufficient evidence against the accused, he was arrested. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against him. 4. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents before the jurisdictional court. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he claimed innocence and alleged false implication. The accused did not lead any defence evidence or examine any witnesses in his defence. The trial Court passed a judgment and acquitted the accused, which the State has challenged in this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the judgment/order of acquittal passed by the trial court is illegal, 3 improper, and incorrect, warranting interference. It is contended that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the statements of the witnesses while acquitting the accused. The counsel further submits that the trial court erred in law by not believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and acquitting the accused/respondent solely on the basis of benefit of doubt. Therefore, the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court are unjustified. Hence, the order dated 29.4.2024, passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/State and perused judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. The learned trial Court, while acquitting the respondent observed in paragraphs 55, 56 & 57 that there has been a communication breakdown between the family of victim and the applicant for the past 3-4 years, and the victim lodged the report at the behest of her family elders. The testimony of the victim's maternal aunt (PW-2) raises doubts about her presence at the scene of the incident. The investigation officer, Kusum Kaivart (PW-6), has been found to have typed the written complaint (Ex.P/1) and registered the FIR, conducting the entire investigation. Although the scene of the incident is stated to be a public place and there is evidence of other individuals being present in the vicinity, the investigation officer only cited relatives and interested witnesses of the victim, without naming any independent witnesses. The existence of a dispute between 4 the two families is evident from the record, and these circumstances cast doubt on the prosecution's case. In such a situation, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution appears doubtful against the accused and the accused becomes entitled to avail the benefit of doubt. 8. 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 probable. The interfere would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the respondent from aforesaid offences, I do not find any ground to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 10. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. 11. Accordingly, the instant Cr.MP stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.