1 2025:CGHC:9059-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3531 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarkshi Kendra Dharsiva, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Laxman Mishra S/o Shivparmbhansh Mishra Aged About 30 Years Permanent R/o Siddut Thana Kasnabad Distt. Gajipur U.P. Present Add. Damadpara Siltara Thana Dharsiva, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 21.02.2025 1. I.A. No. 01 of 2024 is an application for condonation of delay of 376 days in filing the appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed. 2. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.22 10:59:22 +0530 2 judgment of acquittal dated 4.9.2023 passed in Special Sessions Case No.48/2019 by the Court of learned Additional Special Judge Second (POCSO) First Track Special Court, Raipur, whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent from offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(3) and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 06/18 and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’) by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.02.2019 mother of the victim lodged a written report to Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur that present respondent seduce her daughter that he will give him chocolate and took her his home where he tries to outrage her modesty. After receiving such complaint, the FIR has been registered. During the course of investigation, Nazri naksha and Patwari pancnama has been prepared, document regarding date of birth of the victim was seized from the mother and thereafter the victim was sent for medical examination where slides were prepared and same has been sent for FSL. The statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC and other witnessed under Section 161 CrPC was recorded. 4. During the course of investigation, the respondent has been arrested and after conducting the investigation the police filed the charge-sheet before learned trial Court. The respondent abjured his guilt and he was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(3) and 511 of IPC and Sections 06/18 and Section 8 of the POCSO 3 Act. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the respondent. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had utterly failed to establish the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(3) and 511 of IPC and Sections 06/18 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act against the respondent and thus acquitted him. 6. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner / State submits that learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in its right perspective. Learned trial Court should have seen and held that as per the statement of mother of victim, the victim is recovered from the custody of present respondent and furthermore, the report of FSL proves that semen is present in the clothes of the victim. He further submits that learned trial Court failed to consider the settled position of law that sole testimony of the victim/mother is sufficient to convict the accused person for the offence. In the instant matter, only due to some omission and contradiction of the statement of the witnesses, learned trial Court arrived at the finding of acquittal. He also submits that learned trial Court ought to have seen and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/mother when the deposition of the victim/mother is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. Thus, learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent/accused from the aforesaid offence by recording a finding 4 which is perverse to record. Therefore, leave deserves to be granted. 7. We have heard learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the applicant/State and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. Learned Special Judge while acquitting the respondent has observed that undoubtedly, the age of the victim in this case was about 03 years 06 months on the date of the incident. The presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act will always be available in favour of the victim, but the contradictory evidence on record in relation to the complaint proceedings lodged by the mother of the victim (PW-1) in the context of the incident with the victim is so material that it raises serious doubts on the circumstances on which the veracity of the incident can be believed. In such a situation, when the victim’s evidence has not been called on behalf of the prosecution, only on the basis of the statement of the victim’s parents and her maternal grandfather, in the context of the above material contradiction, there is no evidence on record beyond reasonable doubt to prove the crime against the accused/respondent. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt, the accused/respondent is acquitted of the charges under Sections 363, 376(3) alternatively Section 511 of the IPC and Section 6 alternatively Section 18 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Special Judge, acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking 5 grant of leave to appeal. 10. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu