1 2025:CGHC:49640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1056 of 2024 1 - XYZ (The Details Of The Prosecutrix Is Enclosed In The Envelope Annexed With This Appeal) ... Appellant versus 1 - Tuhin Datta S/o Vishwanath Datta Aged About 29 Years R/o D.R.D.O. Camp, Dharampura 01 Beside Kadambari Jagdalpur, Police Station Kotwali, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Permanent Address Nadi Kul Road Nimta Narth Damdam Narth 24 Pargana, West Bangal. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. N. K. Chatterjee, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 06/10/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred against the judgment BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.10.07 18:03:26 +0530 2 dated 05.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,FTSC (under POCSO Act), District Bastar, place Jagdalpur (CG) in Sessions Trial No.91/2021 whereby respondent No.1 Tuhin Datta has been acquitted of the charges under section 354 of IPC & Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the mother of the appellant/victim lodged a written complaint at Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur alleging that the accused, Tuhin Dutta, who lives in her neighborhood, would call her daughter/victim, aged about 6 years, to his house for the past eight months and try to outrage her modesty by touching her private parts. The victim informed her mother (complainant) about the incident on 26.11.2021 stating that the accused would call her and threaten to harm her if she didn't obey him. Based on the written complaint, FIR was registered against the accused. Investigation was initiated. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The victim underwent medical examination. A site map of the incident was prepared. The articles related to the crime were seized. After completion of investigation, the respondent No.1/accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC & Section 10 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned 3 judgment acquitted the respondent No.1/accused of the aforesaid offence. Hence, the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court suffer from perversity inasmuch as they are against the weight of evidence and based on conjectures. The acquittal has resulted from mis- appreciation of material evidence and incorrect application of legal principles. Such a perverse and unjust acquittal calls for interference by the appellate Court in exercise of its powers under law. The judgment of acquittal, therefore, deserves to be set aside, and the accused/respondent be convicted and punished under the offence for which he was charged. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of learned trial Court. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, 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.” 4 8. Coming to the facts of the present case, the prosecution case is based on the testimony of the victim (PW-2), her mother (PW-1) and father (PW-3). However, the victim (PW-2) herself has admitted in her cross-examination that she gave her statement in Court as instructed by her parents. She also admitted that there was a dispute between the accused, Tuhin, and her father, so her family filed a report against Tuhin. 9. The victim's mother (PW-1) has also admitted the dispute between the accused and the victim's father. She did not make a clear statement regarding the date of incident. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not report the incident for a month after the victim informed her. 10. The victim's father (PW-3) has also admitted to having a dispute with the accused and that accused Tuhin had filed a complaint against him. He has admitted that he wrote the letter Ex. D-20 to the Station House Officer, Jagdalpur stating that the incident mentioned in the victim's application submitted on 18.11.2021 had not occurred and that his wife had suspicion, and therefore, filed the FIR in anger. He further requested in the letter to cancel the FIR. 11. Learned trial Court, while discussing in detail in paragraphs 30 to 37 of its judgment found that the testimony of the 5 victim and her parents is not reliable for the reasons that the victim's testimony appears to be tutored by her parents, which raises doubts about its credibility. The victim's mother has made contradictory statements, and her testimony is inconsistent with the facts of the case. The father of the victim also wrote a letter Ex. D-20 to SHO, Jagdalpur stating that no such incident has taken place and requested to cancel the FIR. There was a previous dispute between the accused and the victim's father, which may have motivated the allegations. Hence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly recorded a finding of acquittal. After reassessing the entire evidence and in the light of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to draw a contrary finding and hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 12. The present appeal against acquittal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion/admission stage. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai