1 2025:CGHC:31837-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2144 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station - Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ravi Kumar Bhuwne @ Sonu Bhuwne S/o Dilharan Bhuwne Aged About 21 Years R/o Near Ambedkar Chowk Rahasbeda, Akaltara, Police Station - Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant-State : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 .07.2025 1. I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the petition for grant of leave to appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed. 2. The applicant / State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Janjgir in Special Sessions BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.10 17:44:42 +0530 2 Case No.68/2023, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Panel Code (hereinafter called as “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as “POCSO Act”) holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond doubt. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent has been prosecuted for commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act in connection with Crime No.451/2023 registered at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa. The victim has lodged a written complaint against the respondent to the Police Station Akaltara (Ex.P/1) thereby alleging that the respondent has committed rape with her on the pretext of marriage on 05.09.2023 at around 1 P.M. near Kabristan situated at Lakhkhi Talab, Akaltara. She has also alleged that after committing rape, the respondent threatened for life and also threatened to viral the obscene video and on that threat, he continuously committed physical assault with her. Upon registration of offence, a thorough investigation has been conducted by the Police, where, the statement of the victim and other witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC has been recorded. She was sent for medical examination, where Dr. Lalita Toppo (PW-3) has conducted MLC and issued MLC report Ex.P/7. In order to prove the age of the victim, the investigating agency has submitted school admission register vide Ex.P/24, where her date of birth is mentioned as 20.10.2006, hence, on the date of incident, i.e. 05.09.2023, she was a minor girl of below 18 years. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency has 3 seized relevant records and evidences pertaining to the said offence. 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 6 witnesses in its favour. 5. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused and therefore, acquitted him from the offence charged vide impugned judgment dated 23.12.2024. Hence, this grant of leave to appeal. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the applicant/State submits that learned trial Court is not justified by discarding the evidence without there being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the prosecution. Learned trial Court 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 further submits that the prosecution has produced school admission register/mark-sheet, which under the light of the 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-24. Thus, the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. He also submits that learned trial Court ought to have considered the 4 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 and thereafter, on the threat of killing and making viral the obscene video he continuously committed rape with her. However, learned trial Court overlooked the statement of the victim and acquitted the respondent, which is illegal and liable to be set-aside. He contended that learned trial Court 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, learned trial Court ignored the same and acquitted the respondent from Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He further contended that mother of the victim (PW-1) supported the version of the victim and stated that upon disclosure of incident by the victim the complaint has been made. She has stated that the victim told that the respondent/accused forcibly committing rape continuously by threatening for life and made the obscene video viral, which was created by him. He also contended that medical evidences, i.e. MLC report and FSL report, does not prove the allegation of rape and sexual assault, however, in the statement of the victim as well as statement of PW-1, it is revealed that the victim was subjected to sexual assault/rape, the threat of killing and making the obscene video viral, thus, the criminality on the part of the respondent of committing rape with the victim is prima-facie proved. Thus, leave to appeal deserves to be allowed. 5 7. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the applicant/State and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. Learned trial Court while acquitting the respondent has observed in para-29 of its judgment that the police had seized the original mark sheet of class 10th during the investigation of the case. The said seizure sheet is Ex.P-6, on which her signature is present on part A to A. The police had recorded her statement after interrogation. Out of all the above witnesses, Dr. Lalita Toppo (PW-3) has stated in her examination-in-chief that there were no marks of injury on the body of the victim. Whereas Inspector Satyakala Ramteke (PW-5) has accepted the suggestion in paragraph 9 in her cross-examination that the place of incident is a hard gravelly surface. In such a situation, the argument of the defence side gains strength that if someone is raped forcefully, then at a place like the place of incident, there should be at least scratch marks on the body of the victim. The trial Court has also observed in para 30 of its judgment that apart from this, the victim of the case, PW- 2, has also accepted this suggestion in her cross-examination that there are many big and small trees in the cemetery and there is a possibility of getting hurt while walking on them. Whereas the mother of the victim, PW-1, has accepted an important suggestion in her cross-examination that the people of the locality were afraid that the accused would elope with her daughter. Therefore, they have filed a report against him. This suggestion of cross-examination goes in favour of the accused and it is an established principle of law that if even the slightest doubt arises in 6 favour of the accused, then the accused will get the benefit of it. Hence, by accepting the suggestion given to this witness by the defence, the accused gets the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondent / accused from Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court, 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 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