1 CGHC010083012023 2026:CGHC:41898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 99 of 2023  State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus  Rambharos Kashyap S/o Dilharan Kashyap Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dongakohroud, Police Station Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.R. Pithwa, Deputy G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 21/09/2026 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant/State under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SC/ST Act”) against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Special Sessions Case No. 43/2021, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “POCSO Act”) and Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2021, PW-3, father of the victim, lodged a written report (Ex.P-5), before the police station, Pamgarh, alleging inter alia that on 08.06.2021, his wife informed VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.09.26 17:14:59 +0530 2 him about the missing of the victim, he came back to his house, searched her whereabouts and came to know that the respondent/accused has kidnapped his minor daughter, then he sent his relatives to the house of the respondent/accused to search his daughter. After returning from the house of the respondent/accused, his relatives advised him to lodge the report. At about 2:30 in the night, the brother of the respondent/accused left the victim near her house. When he inquired from his daughter, she disclosed the incident; thereafter, FIR (Ex.P-6) has been registered against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act. The recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-7) was prepared in presence of the witnesses, and in respect of the age of the victim, the police have seized the school register (Ex. P-2) from the school vide seizure memo (Ex. P-3). The birth certificate of the victim has also been seized from the father of the victim vide seizure memo (Ex. P-4). According to the birth certificate, Article A-3. The date of birth of the victim is 24.11.2025. Spot map (Ex. P-9) was prepared by the police, and P-12 was prepared by the Patwari. The primary school marksheet was also seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-10). The social status certificate of the victim, Article A-2, has also been seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-11). Statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, which is (Ex. P-13). The respondent/accused was arrested on 09.06.2021, and statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded, and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. Thereafter, charges have been framed for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC, and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act. 3 3. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v- a) of the SC/ST Act. The respondent/accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. To prove the charge against the respondent/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses; the statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances that appear against him and pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the said offences. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused from all the alleged offences; hence this appeal against the acquittal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is reliable and sufficient to convict the respondent/accused guilty of the alleged offence. The learned trial Court has erroneously given the benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused on the trivial inconsistency in the evidence. The victim has duly supported the prosecution’s case that the respondent/accused dragged her towards the Talab and they left her in the night at about 2:30 a.m.; the victim's evidence has been duly supported by other evidence, and there is sufficient material to hold the accused guilty. The victim was a minor on the date of the incident, aged about 14 years, which has been proved by birth certificate Article A-3. The learned Trial Court has extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused on the basis of police statement, wherein the victim disclosed that she was having an affair with the respondent/accused and there was a prior 4 dispute regarding fixing of a statue in front of the house of the accused and there is no resistance by the victim when was being allegedly kidnapped by the respondent/accused, dragging towards Talab, kept her away from lawful guardianship till the night at about 2:30 a.m. clearly demonstrates that the respondent/accused had committed an offence of kidnapping, but he has been acquitted. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from material illegality and perversity; the same is liable to be set aside, and the respondent/accused may be convicted for the alleged offences. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/State and submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the victim herself, which suffers from material inconsistency. Though she was found to be aged about 14 years, so far as the allegation of kidnapping and sexual harassment is concerned, there is no evidence given by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she made an allegation that respondent/accused caught hold of her hand; however, in cross-examination, she denied that the respondent/accused took her away from her lawful guardians. There is no further allegation levelled against the respondent/accused of sexual harassment; therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of the witnesses and, by giving the benefit of the doubt, the respondent/accused has rightly been acquitted. He further submits that in the appeal against the acquittal, even if two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the respondent/accused is to be taken for consideration; re-appreciating the evidence cannot be permitted against the acquittal of the 5 respondent/accused. The acquittal appeal does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 8. The age of the victim is not specifically disputed by learned counsel for the respondent/accused, as the age of the victim has been proved by the prosecution by producing her birth certificate, Article A-3. As per the birth certificate, Article A-3, the date of birth of the victim is 24.11.2005; the said birth certificate has been issued by the Registrar (Birth and Death), Janpad Panchayat, Dongakahroud. The said birth certificate is a statutory document which is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The said birth certificate is corroborated by the school record, which has been proved by the Headmaster of the school, (PW-1). The date of birth of the victim is recorded in the school register as 24.11.2005. From the cross-examination of (PW-1), it is proved that he is the author of the school register and the date of birth of the victim recorded in the school register is corroborated by her birth certificate; therefore, the consideration of the learned trial Court that the date of birth of the victim is 24.11.2005, she was aged about 16 years and less than 18 years of age, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 9. So far as the allegation of kidnapping and sexual harassment of the victim is concerned, the learned trial Court examined the evidence of the victim (PW-5). After re-appreciation of her evidence, it is found that she stated in her evidence that on 08.07.2021 at about 7:00- 7:30 p.m. she was roaming in front of her house; at the same time, the sister-in-law of the respondent/accused came there, and she dragged her towards her house, and respondent/accused was also there, and after holding her hand he took her towards Lanketar Talab where his other relatives were also present. Thereafter, they left her 6 at about 2:30 a.m. near her house. In cross-examination, she admitted that near the place of incident, the houses of others are also there. In para-5, she disclosed that she was being dragged by the sister-in-law of the respondent/accused. If the Lanketar Talab is not mentioned in her police statement (Ex. D/3), she could not tell the reasons. She further admitted in para 6 of her cross-examination that the respondent/accused had not caught hold of her hand. She further admitted that earlier there was a dispute with the respondent/accused on the issue of fixing the statue in front of the house of the accused. Further, she voluntarily stated that the accused was harassing her, for which a dispute arose between them. From the evidence of the victim, it is clear that there is lack of sufficient ingredients of outraging modesty or sexual harassment in any act that comes under the definition of kidnapping or sexual harassment. The victim herself has stated in her evidence that the sister-in-law of the respondent/accused dragged her towards her house. Though she stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused/respondent dragged her to Lanketar Talab, in para-6, she specifically denied that the respondent/accused had caught her hold. She further admitted that there was a dispute with the respondent/accused with respect to fixing of a statue in front of the house of respondent/accused. Simply saying that the respondent/accused is harassing her is not sufficient, as there is no specific date, time, or nature of harassment disclosed by her. 10. Father of the victim (PW-3) has stated in his evidence that on 08.06.2021, he had gone to his relative’s house, and his wife had informed him about the missing of the victim. He came back and started searching for her. During his search, he came to know that the respondent/accused had kidnapped her daughter; however, they could not find her whereabouts, so he lodged the report. At night, his 7 daughter came back and informed him about the incident. The next morning, the victim informed him that the respondent/accused took her obscene photos and threatened her; thereafter, he made a written complaint before the police, which is (Ex. P/5). He admitted in his cross-examination that he has not disclosed the incident of kidnapping of his daughter to anyone except his neighbour. Though he was detailed cross-examined by the defence with respect to the whereabouts of the victim and his involvement in her search, the evidence is also not sufficient to hold that it is the respondent/accused who kidnapped her and sexually harassed her. There are various omissions and contradictions brought by the defence in his evidence. 11. The mother of the victim (PW-4) stated in her evidence that the victim was missing on 08.06.2021, while she was cooking food. When her whereabouts could not be found, she informed her husband. At night, at about 2:30 a.m., the victim came back to her house and informed her that in the evening, when she came out from her house, the sister-in-law of the accused took her to her house; thereafter, the accused took her towards the field. The place where the accused took her, his other brothers were also there. In cross-examination, she stated that she disclosed in her police statement (Ex. D-2) about the incident, as has been disclosed by her daughter, and if it is not there, she could not tell the reason. She has not specifically alleged in her evidence that the respondent/accused kidnapped her daughter and sexually harassed her. The evidence of her parents cannot be held to be sufficient to convict the accused for the alleged offences. 12. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence of the witnesses as observed in paragraphs 24 to 26 of its judgment, held that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the respondent/accused for the offence in question and also 8 held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted the respondent/accused from all the charged offences. 13. The scope of interference in the appeal against acquittal is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram” reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, in which it has been held that:- “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.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal and held that:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 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 analysed. 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 as double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 15. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the learned trial Court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram 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 9 accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the Appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused persons is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the acquittal appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Vaishali