1 2025:CGHC:33566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 730 of 2019 1 - Rajkumari Sahu D/o Gambhir Sahu Aged About 18 Years Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o Village Bhimpuri, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhuikhdan, Station In- Charge Crime No. 32/18, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Swaroop Verma S/o Dashiram Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bhimpuri, Police Station Chhuikhdan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA and Ms. Neeta T. Thawani, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 17/07/2025 PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.18 15:16:21 +0530 2 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 20.08.2019 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Special Sessions Case No.09/2018, whereby, respondent No.2 has been acquitted from the charges under Section 354D(1), 354(A)(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.01.2018, a minor prosecutrix (PW- 4), aged about 17 years, was going to her field at village Bhxxxx. The respondent/accused with an intention to outrage her modesty, came from her back and caught hold of her one hand and chest, asking for sexual favour. When the prosecutrix resisted his advances, her bangles were broken and further, she also shouted for help. On hearing the hue and cry of the prosecutrix, mother of the prosecutrix - K (PW-3), reached there and on seeing her mother, the accused fled away. The prosecutrix lodged this written complaint (Ex-P/4) in this regard and thereafter, on 13.02.2018, the FIR was registered vide Ex-P/12 at Police Station Chhuikhadan. After enquiry, the Dakhil Khariz Panji was seized vide Ex-P/1, in which, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was found to be recorded as ‘11.01.2000’. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex-P/2. Patwari Map was prepared vide Ex-P/3. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC vide Ex-P/5. Counselor of the District Child Protection Unit prepared the report vide Ex-P/6. 3 Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited Article A (Dakhil Khariz Panji) and 14 documents vide Ex-P/1 to Ex-P/14. The respondent/accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case as there was some political groupism in the village. The accused/appellant examined himself as DW-1 and Heeralal Verma as DW-2 and also exhibited 11 documents vide Ex-D/1 to Ex-D/11. 4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused of the aforesaid offences. Hence the prosecutrix has preferred this Acquittal Appeal herein. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/prosecutrix submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and thus, prays to allow the Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the State has not preferred any Appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Prosecutrix (PW-4) has deposed that on the date of the incident i.e. 03.01.2018, in the morning at about 8 to 9 am, when she was going to her field, the respondent/accused called her, however, even after hearing 4 his voice, she did not stop. Thereafter, the respondent/accused again called her and asking for sexual favour, also offered her money. On hearing all this, the prosecutrix tried to fled away from the spot, but the respondent/accused caught hold of her from back. The prosecutrix shouted for help and on hearing her hue and cry, her mother (PW-3), who had also gone to the field for cleaning the grains, came to her rescue and on seeing her, the respondent/accused fled away. Thereafter, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother (PW-3). 9. Mother of the prosecutrix (PW-3) has deposed that she informed about the above incident to her husband (PW-2), on which, he enquired it from the respondent/accused, but he denied the same. Thereafter, the father of the prosecutrix informed his sons about the incident. Moharlal Sahu (PW-5), elder brother of the prosecutrix, came to know about the incident from his father only. 10.The respondent/accused has taken a specific defence that there was a dispute with regard to political groupism in the village. He further proved a Village Meeting Register vide Ex.P/8, which would show that in a meeting held on 2.8.2017, the village people had caught two boys and on questioning them, it was stated by them that they had given a mobile to the prosecutrix. When the above act of the prosecutrix was recorded in the village meeting register, the prosecutrix got annoyed and an animosity arose between the family of the prosecutrix and the respondent/accused as it was under his leadership, such act was done. Heeralal Verma (DW-2) also witnessed the above incident. The respondent/accused had also filed certain documents to demonstrate that 5 his wife is a member of the Block Development Committee (BDC). The trial Court, after scanning the evidence, found that at the time of the incident, cultivation of grains in the fields was going on. Normally people in the village during this period are present in their respective fields for cleaning the grains (nindai) and the mother of the prosecutrix had also gone to the field for the said purpose. The prosecution has not produced any independent witness, who was present in the nearby field. Furthermore, during the investigation, the prosecutrix has shown the place(s) of the incident in the spot map (Ex-P/2) as also in the Patwari Map (Ex-P/3), however, they do not match. Though the prosecutrix has deposed that during the incident her bangles were broken, but no such bangles were seized. Materially, the incident was earlier inquired on 06.02.2018 by the Sub Divisional Officer of Police, Khairagarh and vide his report Ex-D/9, he found the whole incident suspicious. The SHO, Chhuikhadan has also given a report vide Ex-D/6 to the effect that due to animosity between the parties, the report appears to be false. However, despite such infirmities, the Police registered the offence on 13.02.2018 vide Ex-P/12 though the alleged incident took place on 03.01.2018, which goes to show that after about more than one month FIR has been registered, for which, an explanation has been given in column 8 of the FIR that the report has been made after submission of the enquiry report. Moreover, the enquiry report is also in favour of the respondent/accused. 11.Taking into consideration the aforesaid infirmities, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondent/accused. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a 6 possible one and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid charges. Moreover, it is equally settled that when two views are possible, then the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken. 12.Resultantly, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka