2025:CGHC:10540 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Acq. A. No. 1104 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Senal Kumar Anant S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Aged About 21 Years R/o Dhabapar, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellant : Shri H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L . For Respondent : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 18/08/2025 1. The appellant / State has filed this appeal under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 03/03/2020 passed by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO, Act, 2012), District- Bemetara in Special Sessions Trial No. 37/2018 by which learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent under sections 354-A, 323 of IPC and section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix is a minor who resides at Village Dhabapar with her parents and used to go to her School on a bicycle. The respondent/accused used to harass and tease the prosecutrix on her way to School and demand sexual favour. On 11.10.2018 at about l0 AM while the prosecutrix was going to her School on her bicycle, the respondent/accused forcibly stopped her bicycle because of which she fell down and thereafter, tried to outrage her modesty by touching her chest, hand and feet. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:57:49 +0530 -2- 3. A written report (Ex.P-1) regarding the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix on the same date and on the basis of the same the FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the respondent/accused at Police Station - Nandghat, District Bemetara for the offence under section 354-A, 341 of IPC and section 8 of POCSO Act. The prosecutrix was medically examined by the PW-06 Dr. L.D. Thakur who gave the MLC report (Ex.P-13) mentioning the injuries sustain by the prosecutrix. The Nazri Naksha (ExP-3) and Patwari Naksha (Ex.P-4) were prepared. The progress report of class 5th of the prosecutrix as well as her admission register Ex.P-10C were seized. The statement of the prosecutrix under l64 of Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ex.P-7. The Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate. 4. That, the charge under section 354-A, 323 of I.P.C. and section 8 of POCSO Act was framed against the respondent/accused. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case 5. Learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence on record acquitted the respondent from all the charges by the impugned judgment which led to filing of this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant / State submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and contrary to the settled principle of law. Despite, there being ample evidence available on record against the respondent he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of prosecutrix (PW-2) to it’s proper prospective. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed. The respondent may be convicted for the offences charged and may be sentenced adequately. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent support the judgment impugned and submits that statement of the prosecutrix is not credible. The learned trial -3- Court after assessment of evidence on record gave a meritorious finding of acquittal which may not be disturb in this appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The conviction of the respondent can sustain only the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2), if it inspire confidence, impeccable and pass the test of sterling witnesses as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21. 10. On perusal of statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2) it appears examination-in-chief is stated that she was going to her school on bicycle at that time the respondent / accused came on motorcycle and stood infront of her. She avoided him and moved ahead. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was dropped down by the accused from behind and with wrong intention he held her hand. She also stated whenever, she used to go anywhere, the respondent / accused used to eve-teased her. In the cross- examination, she has stated that the falling of motorcycle from behind by the respondent/accused has not been deposed in her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. However, she is not aware as to why the facts are not been written. She also deposed that fact with regard to the eve-tease by the respondent /accused to her has been told to her uncle has been stated in her statement under section 164 CrPC. However, if it is not written she is not aware of the reason. Apart from this there is so many omission in her 164 CrPC statement. In her cross-examination, she admits that she also deposed that after reaching the school she has not stated anything to the teacher and to her friend with regard to the incident. She had further admitted while she was going to school respondent/accused coming on motorcycle stopped there and was started talking on mobile ans she thought that she has been stopped by the respondent/accused. She also admits that because of stopping of the bicycle she stumbled and fell off the bicycle. She further admitted that as she fallen down, in order to help when the respondent/accused try to leave her she misconstrue that he is eve-teasing her and because of this misconception she started fighting with the respondent/accused and on fit of anger she has lodged the -4- report. Considering this aspect of the matter, the learned trial Court found that the statement of the prosecutrix could not be concluded to be credible. Therefore, the learned trial Court disbelieve the statement of other witnesses and gave a finding of acquittal. For holding the accused / respondent guilty solely on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix i.e. of being consistent all throughout giving the statement of a sterling quality are entirely missing in this case. 11. The finding of case is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to contrary to record. I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the judgment impugned. 12. In light of above, the view taken by learned trial court appears to be a possible view and does not appear to be perverse or contrary to evidence. Therefore, appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish