1 2025:CGHC:26994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.895 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Purani Bhilai, District- Durg (CG) ... Appellant versus Sanjeet Singh S/o Jangbahadur Singh, Aged About 25 Years R/o Indira Nagar, Charoda, Police Station Purani Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri HAPS Bhatia, PL. For Respondent/Accused : Shri Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment On Board 23.06.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 4th FTC, Durg, Special Court (POCSO) Act, 2012, District Durg in Special Sessions Case (POCSO Act) No.11/2019 whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.06.26 10:54:48 +0530 2 354 IPC as also under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix (PW-1), a 17 year old girl, who is a student of Class-X, SPS School, resides along with her father (PW-2) at Railway Colony and the Respondent/accused was posted as a teacher in the said school. It has been alleged that in the month of September, 2018, the prosecutrix went to the house of Respondent/accused along with her cousin (PW-7) to take tuition for mathematics during 3 pm to 5 pm and the Respondent/accused used to impart tuition to the students of X and XI standards in different rooms therein. It is alleged that on 20.09.2018, the Respondent/accused, with a bad intention, touched the body of the prosecutrix and outraged her modesty. The prosecutrix has narrated the said incident to her cousin (PW-7) and thereafter to her father (PW-2) and lodged the FIR, which has been registered on 13.12.2018 (Ex.P-6). The Respondent/accused has also levelled certain allegations against the character of the prosecutrix at the school. 3. During investigation, mool dhaakhila khaarij register (Ex.P-18) was seized through Principal (PW-11). Statement of the witnesses was recorded. Crime details form (Ex.P-4) was prepared. 4. After completing of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. During trial, the Respondent/accused has abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. The Respondent/accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 3 Cr.P.C, has stated that he has been falsely implicated and taken a specific defence that the prosecutrix was poor at mathematics and during the tuition, she has asked him for question papers of the half- yearly examination and when he refused to give the same and scolded her in the presence of other students, she has lodged a false FIR against him. He has also examined two students in his defence i.e. DW-1 & 2. Even after the said incident, the girl students continued to take tuition from him. Learned trial Court, after evaluation of the evidence, has 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 and prays to allow the Appeal.. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent/accused submits that the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and the finding recorded by the said Court is well merited, which does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is one of the students of the Respondent/accused who was taking tuition from him and from the evidence, it has been revealed that her cousin (PW-7) has recommended her to take tuition from the Respondent/accused and she herself was also continuing to take tuition from him even after the 4 incident was reported to the police by the prosecutrix. The defence witnesses i.e. DW-1 & 2 have also deposed that no such misdeed was committed by the Respondent/accused during tuition and the students who were examined in the defence have also categorically stated that the prosecutrix instead of solving the questions given in the tuition, made a demand for question papers of the half-yearly examination from the Respondent/accused upon which, he refused to supply the same and scolded her in front of other students. 9. After scrutinizing the evidence, it is explicit that the other girl students were continuing to take tuition from the Respondent/accused even after the alleged incident took place. Furthermore, the trial Court has recorded that the complaint for which action has been initiated, has not been filed and proved by the prosecution and the FIR has been lodged belatedly on 13.12.2018 vide Ex.P-6 though the alleged incident took place on 20.09.2018 and an explanation has been recorded in column No.8 that after the enquiry, the offence has been registered. It is pertinent to note here that the prosecutrix has not made any complaint to the management of the school and it has also come on record that at the time of incident, other students were also taking tuition in different rooms but the prosecutrix has not raised any hue and cry when the alleged misdeed was committed by the Respondent/accused, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly recorded that there is no direct evidence and the witnesses who have given their statements along with PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 are hear- say witnesses. 5 10. The law has been recently well settled in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another vs. State of Uttarakandi reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176 and the Supreme Court has directed therein that for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused, it has to be seen whether the same suffers from patent perversity; 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the case law cited above and the settled principle that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced 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, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a plausible one therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya