1 2026:CGHC:4818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 455 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Daundilohara, District Baloda C.G. ... Appellant versus Kailash Netam S/o Narayan Singh Netam, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Gurami, Police Station Daundilohara, District Balod. C.G. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant/State : Mr. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28/01/2026 Heard on admission. 1. Present is an acquittal appeal under Section 419(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) filed by the State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 18.11.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Balod, in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 52 of 2023, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence under section 354 of IPC and section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.29 19:38:00 +0530 2 Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 10.05.2023, the mother of the victim (PW-3) lodged a written complaint (exhibit D-1) to the police, that on 09.05.2023, the victim informed her that, on 09.04.2023, when she had gone to the house of the respondent/accused, he outraged her modesty by laying over her body and touching her. She afraid of by the incident and could not inform the same to anyone. Subsequently, she informed the same to her brother and then it came to knowledge of her parents and lodged the report. The FIR (exhibit P-8) has been registered against the respondent/ accused for the offence under sections 354, 354A of the IPC and section 7/8 of POCSO Act. 3. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded. The statement under section 164 of CRPC of the victim has also been recorded, and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent/accused before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused for the offence under section 354 of IPC and section 7/8 of POCSO Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charges against the respondent/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused under section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, and after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused from the alleged offences, which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that, but for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of the victim is fully corroborated with the other witnesses. Though there is some delay in lodging the report, but the delay has duly been explained by the victim that, she was afraid of by the incident and when she informed the incident to her brother, the same came into knowledge of her parents and then lodged the report. She would further submit that the victim is about 12 years of age at the time of incident and it cannot be expected from her that she immediately informed the incident to her family member, particularly when she is saying that she was afraid of by the incident. There is no reason for false implication of the accused and on the ground of minor omissions or contradictions, the respondent/accused was benefited by giving the benefit of doubt and has been acquitted. There are ample and overwhelming evidence against the respondent that he committed the offence against the victim, and therefore, the impugned judgement of acquittal may be set aside and the respondent/ accused may be convicted. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the record of the trial Court. 7. From perusal of the impugned judgement, it transpires that the trial Court has considered that the victim, after the incident, has not informed to anyone and after a few days, she informed her brother and it is her brother who feels that she was subjected to outrage her modesty, informed to the parents. The place of incident is the house of the respondent/accused where her children were also present and 4 the victim had gone there to play with them. Despite their presence, the victim has not informed them also about any incident. There are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the victim, which gives suspicion over her evidence. 8. When this court examined the evidence of the victim (PW-1), it clearly revealed that, when she was playing with the children of the respondent/accused and went to sleep there, she alleged to be subjected to outrage her modesty by the respondent/accused. However, she has not disclosed about the incident to anyone, who presents in the family of the respondent/accused. Further, she informed the incident to her brother after some time, however, her brother has also not been examined by the prosecution. The victim has also stated in her evidence that, earlier also when she was studying in class 4th and 5th, the respondent/accused had committed the offence, but at that time also there was no report lodged against him. The mother of the victim (PW-3) did not disclose about any earlier incident. 9. The learned trial Court has also considered the conduct of the victim that, when the respondent/accused allegedly lied over her, she scolded him and went away from his house. However, on the other side, she stated that, she could not disclose the incident to anyone, for the reason that she was afraid of by the incident, which is self- contradictory. 10. When the victim had gone to the house of the respondent/accused to play with his children and his sister and children were very well 5 present in the house, she could have informed the incident to them about the act of the respondent/accused, but she did not do so, and thereby, considering the entire evidence, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and by giving the benefit of doubt, the respondent/accused has been acquitted. 11. Recently, 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, 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." 12. Further, in case of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under :- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible 6 one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the well- reasoned judgment passed by the leamed trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram (Supra) and Jafarudheen (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. Further, an order of acquittal is not to be interfered with lightly unless it is grossly perverse, there has been serious miss-appreciation of evidence or non-consideration of material evidence and witnesses. If the view taken by the Trial Judge is a possible view, the Appellate Court will not interfere only because another view may also be possible. It is for the prosecution to lead the best evidence and prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the court below 7 has not committed any illegality or infirmity while reaching to the conclusion of acquittal of the respondent-accused from the commission of offence under section 354 of IPC and section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. 15. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved