Gariyaband, (CG) v. Uttam Sonkar S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.27 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Rajim, District- Gariyaband, (CG) ... Appellant versus Uttam Sonkar S/o Shri Balram Sonkar Aged About 18 Years R/o Rajim, Amapara, Police Station- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant/State :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Shri A. D. Kuldeep, Advocate Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 18.06.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO and Rape Matters) Gariyaband (CG) in New POCSO Case No.49/2020, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) of IPC and also under Sections 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2012”). SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 08.11.2018, a report 2 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-5), who was a student of Class-8th, before the Police Station Rajim, stating therein, that since last about 15 days, the respondent had been stalking and harassing her on her way to school, despite clear indication of disinterest. It is alleged further that the conduct of the respondent was informed by the prosecutrix to her father, who in turn, had informed about the incident to the father of the respondent. On 08.11.2018, while the complainant was going on bicycle along with cousin (PW-1), the respondent along with co- accused forcefully stopped her bicycle and the respondent, then, caught hold of her hand and started expressing his affection. It is alleged further that after much effort, the complainant got freed herself from the clutches of the respondent and rushed to her home and informed her parents about the incident. It was also informed that at the time of the incident, her brother (PW-9) was also reached at the spot and the respondent and co-accused had assaulted him. 3. Based upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered by the Police Station Rajim vide Crime No.319/2018 against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) and 323/34 of IPC and also under Sections 8 & 12 of the Act, 2012. During the course of investigation, the statement of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and after completing the usual investigation, the charge- sheet was submitted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, where the charges with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above have been framed against the respondent, which were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has 3 examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent has not committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) of IPC and also under Sections 8 & 12 of the Act, 2012, while convicting him under Section 323 of IPC and, being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment acquitting the respondent from the commission of the offence under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) of IPC and also under Sections 8 & 12 of the Act, 2012, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecutrix (PW-5), her cousin (PW-1) and the brother of the prosecutrix (PW-9), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent as such. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned trial Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. Before proceeding with the matter, it is to be noted that in a case of an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence would get re-enforced, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Atley v. State of U.P.” reported in AIR 1955 SC 807 and, if two views are possible from the evidence on record, then the Appellate 4 Court must be slow in interfering with the appeal preferred against the order of acquittal, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Sambasivan v. State of Kerala” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 412 and, what would be the approach while dealing with the acquittal appeal was laid down by the Supreme Court, in the matter of “Ramesh Babulal Doshi” (supra), wherein, it has been held at paragraph 7 as under:- “7. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the abovequoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order to acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then-and then only-reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions…………….. ” 10. While keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above referred matters, it is necessary to examine the facts and the evidence led by the prosecution in order to ascertain as to whether the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, are perverse or would deserve to be upheld. 11. From perusal of the record, it appears that on account of the incident 5 occurred on 08.11.2018, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) and 323/34 of IPC and also under Sections 8 & 12 of the Act, 2012 and the learned trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, has convicted the respondent only with regard to the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, while acquitting him with regard to the other offences, which has been impugned by way of preferring this appeal. 12. In order to establish the alleged allegations made by the prosecution, the prosecutrix (PW-5), her cousin (PW-1) and her brother (PW-9) were examined, apart from others. 13. According to the statement of the cousin of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-1, she was with the prosecutrix on the said fateful day, though, it was stated by her at para-1 that on the said fateful day, the respondent has caught hold the hand of her said sister/prosecutrix and she has tried to escape herself, but the respondent didn’t leave her hand. It, however, reveals from para-6 of her testimony that the respondent has neither stopped the bicycle nor has tried to outrage her modesty. The prosecutrix (PW-5) has also stated at para-8 that on the fateful day, the respondent has not caught hold of her hand and, the brother of her, who was examined as PW-9, has very specifically stated at para-3 that on the said day, the respondent has neither caught hold of hand of her sister in order to outrage her modesty, nor bicycle of her was stopped by the co-accused. 14. From perusal of the statement of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it is, 6 thus, evident that on the said fateful day, neither the bicycle of the prosecutrix was stopped, nor her hand was caught hold by the respondent-Uttam Sonkar and, in view of such circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) of IPC, read with Sections 8 & 12 of the Act, 2012, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 15. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Tumane