1 2026:CGHC:8752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 934 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Mahendra Singh @ Rinku S/o Bhikham @ Raju Aged About 23 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Chantidih, Police Station Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 18/02/2026 1. The State has filed the present acquittal appeal against the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/First FTSC (POCSO), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, in Special Sessions Case No. 09/2018, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent/accused from the charge under Section 363 and 354 of I.P.C. and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the victim lodged a written complaint on 16.12.2017, to the police that his child has been molested ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.03.27 11:05:34 +0530 2 on 15.12.2017. The written complaint made by the father of the victim is Ex.P/1. The police has registered the offence under Section 354 of IPC against the respondent/accused, who is Ex.P/2. The allegation in the FIR against the respondent accused is that on 15.12.2017 at about 11:30 pm, his daughter was crying near Jenas Palace and when she was being asked by the persons present there, she disclosed that one driver of the vehicle molested her and she made a gesture towards the respondent accused. Statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared by the Police. With respect to the age of the victim, one school register has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/10, and after retaining the attested true copy Ex.P12-C, the original register was returned to the school. The appellant was arrested on 16.12.2017, and his vehicle bearing No. JH10AM3074 has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. After completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the respondent accused for the offence under Section 363, 354 of IPC. and Section 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, before the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial court has framed the charge under Section 363, 354 of I.P.C. and Section 8 of POCSO Act. The respondents/accused abjured the guilt. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses in its favour. Statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which, he denied the circumstances that appears against him pleaded innocence and have submitted that on the date of incident his vehicle was booked in a marriage function and he had gone there. The father of the victim asked him to drop them to railway station and when he replied to drop them after having his dinner, they assaulted him while fleeing from the 3 place he dashed with the victim by which she received injury on her face. Except this no incident was occurred on that day. 4. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has not found sufficient evidence for conviction of the respondent/accused and acquitted him from the charged offences vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.07.2021. Hence, the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses without there being any strong reason to discard their evidence. Learned State counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the father of the victim(PW- 1), the victim (PW-2) and the mother of the victim (PW-3). He would also submit that minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses do not affect the credibility of their evidence. The learned trial Court should have considered that there was no reason for false implication of the respondent, as the victim was being molested and she immediately informed the incident to her parents who lodged a prompt report. The victim has duly identified the respondent accused that he committed the offence, and therefore, the guilt of the respondent accused has been proved by the prosecution, but the learned trial Court has given the benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused and acquitted him from the alleged offence. There are sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the respondent accused and he is liable for the conviction under the charged offences. 4 6. None appears on behalf of the respondent/accused though earlier he was represented by his counsel. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. From perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by leanred trial Court, it transpires that the age of the victim who was 09 years and 06 months of age at the time of alleged incident, is not disputed by the accused, and the learned trial Court has also found her age to be proved by relying upon her school record. The unrebutted evidence of her age proved that she was aged about 09 years and -6 months at that time, which was rightly considered by the learned trial Court. 9. With respect to the alleged offence of outraging the modesty of the victim and kidnapping her, I examine the evidence of the witnesses and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 10. The victim PW-2 has stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident she had gone to Jenas Palace, Bilaspur in the marriage reception of her maternal uncle. When she came outside to take ballon, and asked the respondent/accused for the same, he pressed her chest and then she started crying. A number of people were gathered and her parents also came to know about the incident. Thereafter, they assaulted the accused. In cross-examination, she stated that she has not disclosed in her police statement Ex.P/4 that near the place of function, a ballon vendor was there and the respondent/accused took her by alluring that he will give a big ballon 5 and took her inside the vehicle and pressed her chest but how it was returned could not know. She admitted that she disclosed the incident to her parents when they returned to their house. AT the time when she came out for ballon, her parents and other relatives were with them. 11. PW-1, father of the victim has stated in his evidence that he is residing at Delhi and came to Bilaspur to appear in the marriage function of his brother-in-law. At about 11-12 hours in the night, his daughter informed that one driver had pressed her chest, and when they came out from the marriage place, she made a gesture towards the respondent/accused and when they asked about the incident, he denied. Thereafter, he lodged the report. In cross-examination, he admitted that he lodged a report to the Civil Line Police Station but did not mention the name of the accused. He denied that his daughter has informed him about the incident when they returned to their house. He admitted that the incident was witnessed by various persons. 12. PW-3, the mother of the victim has stated that her daughter had gone to take ballon along with her father where the accused pressed her chest and then she started crying. Various persons were gathered and then she came back to her house. Thereafter, they called the police and lodged the report. Her daughter made a gesture towards the accused that he had committed the offence. In cross-examination, she stated that at the time of the incident her other relatives and the father of the victim were with her. She has not disclosed this fact to the police. There was no balloon vendor near the gate of the marriage palace. She admitted that she had not seen the incident, and she 6 disclosed the incident on the basis of information given by her daughter. 13. With respect to the alleged incident there is no other witnesses produced by the prosecution to prove the same. 14. While considering the evidence the learned trial Court has observed that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. When the victim herself have stated that she has not disclosed to the police that the accused took her inside the vehicle and pressed her chest. She disclosed the incident to her parents when they came back to their house. As per the evidence of her father, PW-1, they came to know about the accused on the spot itself, and he assaulted him, yet in the written complaint Ex.P/1, the accused was not named. As per the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, the relatives of the victim were with her at the time of the alleged incident, but they have not been examined. As per the evidence of PW-3 there was no balloon vendor outside of the marriage palace. 15. Considering the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the victim has not been supported by any other witnesses, and her parents are not the eyewitnesses. Further, the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim Ex.P/4 is manipulated by putting last line in the statement with respect to disclosure of the name of the respondent accused. The learned trial Court held that the prosecution could not establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the respondent accused and by giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted him of the alleged offence. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel 7 for the appellant and gone through the evidence available on record, this Court does not find any sufficient ground or scope to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 16. 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." 17. In the case of “Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala”, reported in 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgement 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 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 8 presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 18. Further, in the case of “Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & Others”, 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgement that :- “27- It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to reappreciate 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 evidence on record.” 19. 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 (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. I therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9 20. For the foregoing reasons, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merits the same is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok