1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Kondagaon Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Deepak Kuldeep S/o. Ramkumar Kuldeep, Aged About 28 Years R/o Majisdpara Keshkal
Case Details
1 HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.08.07 10:39:16 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 119 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Deepak Kuldeep S/o. Ramkumar Kuldeep, Aged About 28 Years R/o Majisdpara Keshkal, Police Station -Keshkal District Kondagraon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant / State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, GA For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
“Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in a number of cases has held that an Appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the Appellate Court comes to the 4 conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court. [See : M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind Dass vs. Ram Narain & Ors. (1979 (3) SCC 279), State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh alias Chhajju (1978 (3) SCC 129), State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981 (3) SCC 199) and Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975 (3) SCC 815)]. In the instant case also we find that the trial court had taken a view which the High Court has not held to be either perverse, unreasonable or a finding which is not based on evidence, still on re-appreciation of the evidence, the High Court came to a different conclusion which on facts of this case and on the basis of the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in the above cited cases cannot be sustained. 8. In the case of M.C.Ali and anr. v. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 in which it has been held as under - 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes 5 of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 9. Learned trial Court has meticulously discussed the evidence available on record in respect of all the offences which has been charged against the respondent and after analysis of the evidence of the witnesses, in paragraph 40 gave following finding - “40. Upon a careful analysis of the evidence, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used criminal force by holding the victim’s hand or arm with the intent to insult or outrage her modesty. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that the accused habitually followed or harassed the victim while she was commuting to school. In the absence of proof that the accused committed any offence punishable with imprisonment, it cannot be held that he committed house trespass with the intent to commit rape or any other such offence. The prosecutrix herself admitted that she had known the accused for two to three years through phone conversations and used to communicate with him via mobile. She further stated that the door of the house remained open as the accused was residing there as a tenant. Under such circumstances, the mere fact that the accused entered the house cannot be construed as criminal trespass with the intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.” 10. In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW-2) is the star witness. Although she 6 initially supported the prosecution's case during her examination-in-chief, significant contradictions emerged during her cross-examination. She admitted to having known the respondent for the past 2–3 years and stated that they were in regular contact through WhatsApp, including her having sent birthday greetings to him. Notably, she did not raise any alarm when the respondent allegedly entered the house. She further deposed that if the neighbour not intervened or instigated, the report would not have been lodged. Considering these material aspects, the learned Trial Court rightly held that the testimony of the prosecutrix lacked the degree of credibility and consistency necessary to sustain a conviction. While the learned counsel for the appellant/State sought to contend that minor omissions and contradictions ought not to defeat the prosecution’s case, in the present facts, the view taken by the learned trial Court disbelieving the prosecutrix’s testimony as not being of sterling quality is both plausible and legally sustainable. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the approach adopted by the trial Court. The view taken is based on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence on record and does not call for interference. In light of the above, and keeping in view the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the standard of evidence required for conviction, this appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE H.Ansari
Arguments
: Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan and Mr. Karan Kr. Bahrani, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 01/08/2025 This appeal under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.PC), has been filed by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 29.12.2022 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge FTSC (POCSO) Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon CG (for short trial Court) in POCSO Case No. 10/2020 whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 454, 354(d) & 354 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the POCSO Act). 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the prosecutrix (PW-1) lodged a report in the Police Station, stating that she is a student of Class- 10 at a school in 2 Keshkal. She alleged that the accused/respondent Deepak Kuldeep had been harassing and assaulting her during her commute to and from school by repeatedly approaching her and expressing displeasure that she did not speak to him. On the date of the incident, i.e., 26.02.2020, at around 3:00 p.m., while the prosecutrix was alone at home her parents having gone out for work the accused unlawfully trespassed into her house. He entered her room and forcefully held her hand with the intent to outrage her modesty. When the prosecutrix raised an alarm, a neighbor approached, upon which the accused fled the scene by climbing the stairs and jumping off the roof. Based on the written complaint, FIR (Ex. P-2) was registered at Police Station Keshkal under Crime No. 23/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 454 of IPC, and Section 8 of POCSO Act. Investigation was set on motion, spot map was prepared and statement of the witnesses were recorded. Birth certificate of the prosecutrix was seized and later on Section 354 (d) IPC was added and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed showing the respondent as absconder. Later on, he was apprehended and the respondent was charged as stated above. He denied charges and claimed trial. Statement of the respondent under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 3. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court on the basis of evidence, acquitted the respondent of all the charges which led to filing of this appeal. 4. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar counsel for the appellant /State argues that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent by failing to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The prosecutrix (PW-1) consistently supported the prosecution in her FIR, Section 161 CrPC statement, and court testimony, clearly attracting the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC. Though declared hostile, she remained firm on the core allegation of the accused’s intent to outrage her modesty. PW-3 and PW-5, the eyewitnesses, corroborated her version by deposing that they saw the accused fleeing the spot upon hearing her cries. The trial Court wrongly gave undue weight to minor 3 contradictions and investigative lapses, which do not nullify credible evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was overlooked, despite foundational facts being established. Therefore he prays that the acquittal appeal deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent on just and legal grounds. He submit that the prosecutrix (PW-1) turned hostile and admitted contradictions between her FIR, Section 161 CrPC statement, and court testimony. She acknowledged knowing the respondent for 2–3 years, being in regular contact via WhatsApp, and even sending him birthday greetings. She did not raise any alarm during the alleged incident and admitted that the complaint was lodged only after the neighbour's intervention. He further submits that trial Court rightly found her testimony unreliable and insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 354 IPC or Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Hence, no interference is warranted, and the appeal deserves dismissal. 6. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 461 observed that an appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. It has been held in paragraph 9 as under -