1 2025:CGHC:40820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1028 of 2024 1 - XYZ (Details In Closed Envelope) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana In-Charge, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Lakhan Lal Sahu S/o Kishan Lal Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), Presently R/o Kauhakunda P.S. Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.),...(Accused) ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Surendra Dewangan, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 13/08/2025 1. Heard on admission. Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.08.14 19:52:25 +0530 2 2. This appeal under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.6.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) in Criminal Case under POCSO Act No.20 of 2022 by which respondent No.2 has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 454, 354, 354(d)(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act’). 3. Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the complainant/victim made a written report in Police Station Chakradhar Nagar that her date of birth is 6.8.2006. On 7.4.2022, she was all alone in her home and her younger sister and brother were playing on the roof of the house with her friend (PW D). At about 6 p.m., respondent No.2 entered the house. Seeing her alone, he, in order to outrage her modesty, dragged her by her arm. She pushed him away and shouted for her younger sister. Her friend (PW D) came down from the roof and saw respondent No.2 running. At that time, her father came from the Court. He was narrated about the incident. Her mother had already gone to the house of her maternal grandmother three days before. On the basis of the written report, under Crime No.209 of 2022, FIR for an offence under Sections 454, 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act was registered and investigation was set on motion. During the course of investigation, the 3 statement of the complainant/victim and witnesses were recorded. Spot map was prepared. Statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. She was counseled through CWC. Respondent No.2 was arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Respondent No.2 was charged for offence under Sections 454, 354, 354(d)(1)(i) of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. He denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Statement of respondent No.2 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he claimed his innocence and false implication and examined himself as a defence witness (DW1). He exhibited one document as Ex.D2. 4. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, acquitted respondent No.2 from all the charges as stated above which led to filing of this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is perverse, unjustified, contrary to the evidence on record and bad in law. He submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of the complainant/victim and erroneously held that her statement is not of sterling quality. He further submits that the statement of the complainant/victim is sufficient to hold respondent No.2 guilty. Therefore, he submits that the appeal 4 may be allowed and respondent No.2 may be convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced appropriately. 6. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1 supports the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Trial Court, after meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record, has given the benefit of doubt to respondent No.2. He further submits that it is apparent from record that there is a monetary dispute between the father of the complainant/victim and respondent No.2 and it is a clear case of false implication. He further submits that the mother, father of the complainant/victim have not supported the case of the prosecution and the witness (friend of the complainant/victim) has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, considering all the evidence available on record, the Trial Court has given the benefit of doubt to respondent No.2 which does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. True it is that the conviction of respondent No.2 can sustain on the solitary statement of the complainant/victim. The rider only is that the statement of the complainant/victim ought to have been credible, unimpeachable and of sterling quality as 5 held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21. In that context, it is necessary to look into the statement of the complainant/victim (PW1). The complainant/victim, in her examination-in-chief, has supported the case of the prosecution. However, considering her entire testimony and also the testimony of her friend (PW D), father (PW2) and mother (PW3), the Trial Court has given a categorical finding as under: “54. Now if we look at the supporting evidence, the victim's mother (PW 3) did not support the victim's statements, the victim (PW 1) stated that the friend who came downstairs saw the accused running away, the victim's friend number-D (PW 5) stated that the victim's father and the police caught the accused when she came downstairs. The victim (PW 1) said different things in her statement under Section 161 CrPC, in her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC and in her judicial statement, the victim's father went to meet the accused in jail, there was abusive language and argument during the phone conversation with the accused on the morning of the incident, all these facts point towards the fact that there was a dispute between the two from before. If the incident had actually happened with the victim, then the statement of the victim would have been supported by the mother of the victim, but the fact that 6 the mother of the victim did not support the statement of the victim raises a doubt on the case of the prosecution. 55. On the basis of the foregoing discussions, it is proved from the evidence that the victim (PW 1) was a girl below eighteen years of age on the date of the incident. It is proved from the evidence that the accused had been visiting the victim's house earlier. In the main examination of the victim, the accused has stated that he had pulled her towards himself with the intention of insulting her by holding her hand and arm, which is not believable, because after the incident, in the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the victim states against the accused that she felt that they had come to insult her, but it was not so, they had just come to scold her, in such a situation the statement of the victim is not believable. The statement of the victim is not of reliable nature and is contradictory in nature. The fact that the victim's mother did not support the victim's statements and the victim's father had a dispute with the accused in the past is sufficient to separate the accused from the alleged crime of molestation of the victim. Therefore, it is not proved that the accused entered the victim's house and committed surreptitious house-trespass and committed sexual harassment by using criminal force with the intent to outrage her modesty or committed the crime of sexual harassment by involving non-penetrative physical contact with sexual intent or committed sexual assault. Accordingly, the prosecution case is not found to be true.” 7 10. The law entertaining an appeal against a judgment of acquittal is no longer res integra. 11. In the matter of Budh Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (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 evidence 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 the admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. 12. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala, reported in (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 in the case, one 8 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 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 fo the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by the 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. 13. In light of the above judgments and looking to the evidence of the complainant/victim (PW1) and the other available evidence like her friend (PW D), father (PW2) and mother (PW3), the finding which has been recorded by the Trial Court, as stated above, does not appear to be absolutely perverse or contrary to the evidence. The statement of the complainant/victim cannot be termed to be credible and has passed the test of sterling evidence. 9 14. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited above, 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 finings recorded by the Trial Court. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal