Nafr High Court
Case Details
SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.03.06 17:59:31 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:11091-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 67 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dantewada District South Baster Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Sanjay Paswan @ Sanju S/o Ganesh Paswan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Narharkoti Chowk, Police Station Kalwahi, District Madhubani (Bihar) Presently Residing At Naya Bus Stand Jagdalpur Police Station Bodhghat District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant/State For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate None Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Judgment on Board. 06/03/2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 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 30.03.2017 passed by the Special 2 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South Bastar Dantewada (CG) in Special Sessions Case No.09/2014, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’). 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that the father of the prosecutrix lodged a report on 23.07.2014, vide Ex. P-13 before the Police Station, Dantewada to the effect that at the time of incident, i.e. in the month of June, 2014, he had gone for his work and his daughter, the prosecurtrix, was sitting near a Mango tree around 12.00 pm (afternoon) along with her friends, namely, Rama Tamo and Sukhmati. It is alleged further that when he returned from his work in the evening, he, has, however, not found his daughter at home and upon asking from his wife, it was stated by her that she is not aware about her daughter. He, thereafter, searched about his daughter from his relatives, but no information was, however, received. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR was registered on 23.07.2014 (Ex.P-13) against an unknown person with regard to the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, in connection with Crime No.94/2014. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the respondent on 23.08.2014, vide recovery Panchanama (Ex.P-1) and thereafter, she was sent for medical examination, which was conducted by Dr. Smt. Madhuri Shandilya (PW-6), who in her report (Ex.P-9) does not 3 found any sign of recent sexual intercourse with her, nor any injury was found on her body. In the said report, the age of the prosecutrix has been shown by her as 13 years old. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC along with Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and, the matter was thereafter committed to the Special Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South Bastar, Dantewada for trial, where the charges were framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and, the charges so framed were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and has exhibited 22 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution held, in absence of any documentary evidence, that the prosecutrix was not minor at the relevant point of time and observed further, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, that the respondent was not the author of the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the 4 finding of 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 prosecution, particularly, the statements of the parents and the prosecutrix, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged offence, as such. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. It appears, as revealed from the report (Ex.P-13) lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 23.07.2014, that 39-40 days prior to lodging of the same, his daughter had gone somewhere else when she was sitting near the Mango tree along with her friends. In order to establish the minority of the prosecutrix, the parents of the prosecutrix, who were examined as PW-5 and PW-7, have, however, unable to state regarding the age of their daughter, nor any document like, Birth Certificate and Dakhil Kharij Register, etc. were placed on record to this effect. It appears further that when the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Smt. Madhuri Shandilya (PW-6), the age of the prosecutrix has been mentioned as 13 years, but that was, however, found to be recorded based upon the information given by the prosecutrix, though, no endorsement as such was mentioned therein. It appears further 5 from her statement that she has advised for the radiological test regarding the confirmation of her age and perusal of the record would show further that although the x-ray report was placed on record, but in order to establish the said fact, the concerned Doctor was not examined. In such circumstances and in absence of any documentary evidence, like the Birth Certificate and the Dakhil Kharij register of the concerned School, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in holding that she was not found to be minor at the relevant point of time and, we, accordingly, affirmed the said finding. 8. Father of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-5, has stated at para 12 that his daughter has left the house because she was slapped by her mother and similar was the statement of her mother, who was examined as PW-7 and, the prosecutrix has also stated that she, on her own wish, has left the house along with the respondent and had gone to his place at Bihar and resided in his elder brother’s house. The prosecutrix has, thus, visited along with him on her own without making any complaint in this regard. That apart, the prosecutrix, who has left the house sometimes in the month of June, 2014, i.e. 39 to 40 days prior to lodging of the report dated 23.07.2014, but, no plausible or reasonable explanation in this regard has, however, been offered by the prosecution as to why the alleged report was lodged after passing of the considerable period from the date of leaving her house which, therefore, lead to an irresistible conclusion that she on her own, has left the house. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was abducted by the respondent, as alleged by the prosecution. 6 9. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in this appeal, so as to call for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge sunita