1 CGHC010512652025 2026:CGHC:31080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 439 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kotwali, O/p Manikpur, P.S. Kotwali, District- Korba C.G. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Vinit Sharan S/o Rajendra Prasad Aged About 23 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Behind S B S Colony, O/p Manikpur, P.S. Kotwali, District- Korba C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Ms.Vaishali Mahilong, Dy.GA For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judgment on Board 21/07/2026 The present acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 419(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Korba in Special 2 Case (POCSO) No. 46/2022, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 08.10.2022, at about 12:45 a.m., the mother of the victim (PW-1) lodged a written complaint (Ex.P-1) alleging that at about 8:30 p.m. on the previous evening, while she along with her daughter (victim) and son was proceeding towards Manikpur near the railway crossing, the respondent/accused allegedly attempted to outrage the modesty of her daughter. It is alleged that upon raising an alarm by her, local residents rushed to the spot and rescued her. Acting upon the said complaint, FIR was registered against the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 506 Part II of the IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The victim was thereafter subjected to medical examination at the Medical College, Korba. However, the medical examination did not reveal any external injuries, including any soft tissue injuries. During the course of investigation, the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statements of other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The relevant school records pertaining to the age of the victim were also seized. Upon completion of investigation, the respondent/accused was arrested on 08.10.2022 and a charge- sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3 3. The learned trial Court framed charges against the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 506 Part II of the IPC and Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act. The respondent/accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses and exhibited the relevant documentary evidence. The statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the minor omissions and discrepancies noticed by the trial Court do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It is contended that the evidence of the victim and her mother is cogent, trustworthy and sufficient to sustain the conviction of the respondent/accused. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged promptly by the mother of the victim and the respondent/accused was specifically named therein. The victim as well as her mother have consistently supported the prosecution case during trial. However, the learned trial Court erroneously discarded their testimony as exaggerated. 4 6. It is further contended that the learned trial Court committed a manifest error in holding that, in the absence of examination of the independent witnesses, the prosecution case stood unproved. According to the appellant, undue emphasis has been placed upon minor discrepancies while overlooking the otherwise reliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses, resulting in an erroneous order of acquittal despite there being sufficient and overwhelming evidence connecting the respondent/accused with the alleged offences hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence on record. It is argued that the testimony of the victim and her mother lacks corroboration from any independent witness and suffers from exaggerations and material inconsistencies. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court neither suffer from perversity nor from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the record of the trial Court as well as the impugned judgment. 9. Although the written report was promptly lodged by the mother of the victim (PW-1), a perusal of the written complaint (Ex.P-1) and the 5 Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-2) reveals that the respondent/accused was specifically named therein. However, from the testimony of the victim (PW-2), it transpires that the respondent/accused allegedly approached her from behind and attempted to outrage her modesty. There is no assertion in her evidence that she was previously acquainted with the respondent/accused. On the contrary, the mother of the victim (PW-1) has categorically stated in paragraph 1 of her deposition that she was not acquainted with the respondent/accused and could identify him only after the date of the incident. She has not disclosed when or under what circumstances she came to identify him. This assumes significance in view of the fact that the respondent/accused was admittedly a stranger to the victim and her mother, yet the written report specifically named him. The prosecution has failed to explain this material aspect. 10. Further, there are material discrepancies regarding the obscene words allegedly uttered by the respondent/accused at the place of occurrence and the version subsequently deposed before the Court. The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and has found material inconsistencies in the allegations levelled against the respondent/accused. 11. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence of the victim and her mother, the learned trial Court has observed that both witnesses have made exaggerated allegations against the respondent/accused and that their testimony, in the absence of 6 independent corroboration, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. The trial Court has further noticed that though independent witnesses were available at the spot and were referred to in the FIR and also included in the list of prosecution witnesses but none of them were examined by the prosecution without any plausible explanation. In the peculiar facts of the present case, where the testimony of the victim and her mother is not free from material discrepancies and exaggerations, corroboration by the independent witnesses present at the spot assumed considerable importance. The failure of the prosecution to examine such witnesses casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case. 12. Having considered the entire evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges. The legal position governing interference in an appeal against acquittal is well settled. In Jafarudheen & Others v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, the Apex Court has held that while exercising appellate jurisdiction against an order of acquittal, the appellate Court must examine whether the view taken by the trial Court is a possible and reasonable view based on the evidence available on record. It has been held in para 25 of the said judgment, 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 one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of 7 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." An order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and therefore, unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are manifestly erroneous or perverse, appellate interference is unwarranted. 13. Similarly, in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari & Others, (2023) 8 SCC 197, the Apex Court reiterated that although the appellate Court possesses full power to reappreciate the evidence, it should not overturn an acquittal merely because another view is possible. Where the view adopted by the trial Court is a plausible one founded on a proper appreciation of the evidence, the appellate Court ought not to substitute its own opinion. has held in para 27 of its judgment that :- "27. It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re- appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant 8 evidence on record." 14. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and constitute a plausible and reasonable view. The impugned judgment of acquittal neither suffers from perversity nor from any manifest illegality warranting interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.23 14:56:56 +0530