1 2025:CGHC:18937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 391 of 2018 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant versus 1 - Laxmi Kumar Nayak W/o Bhushan Nayak Aged About 38 Years R/o- Motilal, Kota, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G. A. For Respondent(s) : None, though served. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 25/04/2025 1. This acquittal appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/ State challenging the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 03.04.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.208/2017 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) Raipur, District Raipur (CG). By the impugned judgment, the respondent was acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 354, 506 Part II of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. 2 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the prosecutrix (PW-2) lodged a report at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur on 09.07.2017 to the effect that the accused respondent had tried to outrage her modesty by pressing her throat and also threatened her to dire consequence. On that basis Crime No.91/2017 has been registered against the accused respondent under Sections 354, 506 Part II and Section 8 of POCSO Act. During investigation, the accused was arrested, he was medically examined. In relation to the age of victim, her Dakhil Kharij Register and progress card of Class IX were seized. Spot map was prepared. After recording of statement of the witnesses, charge-sheet against the accused under Section 354, 506 Part II of the IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act has been filed and the case was committed to the trial Court for trial. 3. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The statement of the accused respondent under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where she pleaded her innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of evidence acquitted the accused/ respondent by the judgment impugned which led to filing of this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by learned trial Court is bad in law, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence to its proper perspective, the statement of victim (PW-2) has not been appreciated properly, she supported the case of prosecution, therefore, the appeal may be allowed and respondent may be convicted. 6. None appeared on behalf of respondent. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Though the victim PW-2 in her statement supported the case of prosecution, however she admits that there is continuous quarrel taking place between the families and earlier also she had a fight with the daughter of the accused and on the date of incident there was a dispute between her and the accused regarding the said incident. She has also admitted that she had lodged a report at the Police Station on saying of 3 Gulabi Gang. Though PW-4- mother of the victim also supported the case so as the eye-witness PW-1- sister of the prosecutrix. Another witness PW-6 also supported the case. One witness Renu Pal (PW-7)stated that after date of incident mother of the victim called her and informed about the incident and thereafter on coming to know about the incident they informed the Child Welfare Committee on phone and members of the committee came and lodged a report against the accused/ respondent. 9. Investigation Officer- Mohd. Asrar (PW-8) supports the case of prosecution and admitted that only the relatives of the victim was cited as a witness. The learned trial Court has meticulously assessed the statement of victim (PW-2) and found that as per statement of victim she has leveled allegation of pressing her throat by the accused/ respondent, however no medical of the victim was conducted and no satisfactory explanation by the prosecution was offered which makes this statement doubtful. The learned trial Court on the assessment also found that the threatening given to the victim caused her frightened but victim in her statement admitted that she is regularly going to the school after the incident and the incident was reported on the next day, therefore, did not find charge of Section 506 Part II of IPC is proved against the respondent. On marshelling the evidence of victim (PW-2) and mother of victim (PW-4), learned trial Court found that the mother has given an exaggerated statement and the statement of independent eye-witness PW-6 also does not corroborate, as this witness has simply stated that the respondent pressed the throat and slapped her two- three times. This witness also admits that the respondent was pressing the private parts of the victim over her clothes. She herself stated that the accused was abusing the victim filthily. Learned trial Court also observed that victim and the respondent accused are of the same caste and residence of same vicinity. There was earlier dispute between the daughter of the respondent and victim and on account of which the dispute arose between the victim and the respondent. Learned trial Court also found that on saying of Gulabi Gang along with the members of that Gang, the report was lodged against the respondent and found that on account of enmity, the factum of lodging exaggerated report cannot be ruled out. Learned trial Court also found that 4 there is no sequence in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and there is majority of contradictions and omissions to encroach to the root of the matter, therefore found the case of the prosecution doubtful. The Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149 has observed in Paras 38,39 & 40 as under:- 38.First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial Court. 39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another1 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: - “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of 1 (2022) 3 SCC 471 acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415] “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed 5 to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka2 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: - “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 10. In light of the above legal principles, the findings recorded by the trial Court appears to be based on proper appreciation and which could be arrived at on the basis of evidence. This Court is not inclined to interfere the finding recorded by trial Court, hence the appeal has no merit liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.04.29 17:32:38 +0530