1 2025:CGHC:16561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 600 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus Rajkumar Patle @ Khanna S/o Kanhaiyalal Aged About 19 Years Village Barduli, Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 08.04.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State against the judgment dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sakti, Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Case No.23/2016, whereby, the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 456, 354 (two times) of the IPC, in alternative, Section 8 (two times) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that victim (PW-5), aged 17 years, lodged a written report (Ex.P-6) at Police Station Jaijaipur to the effect that the accused, who is residing in her village, used to molest her as and when Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.04.09 16:51:55 +0530 2 he found her alone and sexually harassed her by forcefully holding her hands and pressing her breast. It is also stated that on the date of incident i.e. 11.07.2016 at about 8 PM, in the night, when the victim went to the boring situated near her house, the accused came there and caught hold of her hands forcefully and tried to molest her with intention to ourage her modesty. When she started shouting, her father came there and chased the accused, however, the accused ran away. On the basis of aforesaid information, on 12.07.2016 at about 13:30 hours, FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against the respondent/accused for committing the aforesaid offence. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. However, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The respondent/accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has pleaded innocence and false implication, however, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the appellant/State preferred the instant appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in true perspective as the victim as well as her father both have categorically deposed regarding the conduct of the accused that he has sexually assaulted the minor girl. In such circumstances, the prosecution has successfully established its case 3 against the accused, therefore, judgment passed by the trial Court is not sustainable and same deserves to be set-aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent (accused therein) would support the judgment impugned. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. 10.Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(2006) 10 SCC 617], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced 4 in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 11.It is well established that the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, however, the High Court should only interfere when the reasoning of the trial Court is totally absurd. In the matter of Prandas Vs. the State [1950 SCC 62 : AIR 1954 SC 36] the aforesaid principle was reiterated after relying the leading case of Sheo Swarup Vs. Emperor [AIR 1934 PC 227] which provided the following guidelines:- "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be 5 placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice.” 12.Reverting back to the present case, admittedly the incident for which report was lodged against the respondent/accused happened on 11.07.2016 at about 8 hours when the victim went to boring situated near her house. However, there is difference between the version deposed by the victim (PW-5) and her father (PW-4) regarding the manner in which incident happened. Other witnesses are only related to victim. PW-2 (K), uncle of the victim, deposed that after said incident mother and father both reached to the spot, however, this fact has not been stated by father of the victim. So there is inconsistency in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, from deposition of witnesses, it is noticed that before the alleged incident, another report was lodged by the family of the accused against the family members of the victim regarding the incident took place on 23.06.2016. In such backdrop, learned trial Court extended benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused and not found the testimony of the prosecution witnesses fully reliable. 13.Having regard to the aforesaid facts, evidence available on record and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 6 Court, this Court is of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court was a possible view. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal appears to be just and proper and same does not call for any interference by this Court. 14.Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay