Chandra High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23020-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 949 of 2023 State of Chhattisgarh Police Station - Baloda, District - Janjgir - Champa, (Chhattisgarh) versus ... Applicant Shailendra Kumar @ Rehan Keshkar S/o Shani Kumar Keshkar Aged About 20 Years R/o Nawagaon, Police Station- Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For State / applicant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Mr. N. K. Chatterjee, Advocate _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 11.06.2025 1. 2. 3. I.A. No. 01 of 2023, is an application for condonation of delay of 193 days in filing the instant petition seeking leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.05.2022 passed in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.75/2020 by the Court of Special Judge, 2 POCSO, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(<) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act by giving benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim, who is a girl aged about 16 years on 04.04.2020 at 04.00 AM, had gone away from the house without informing anyone, taking along with her Activa motor cycle, mobile phone and cash. Then, the father of the victim, expressing suspicion that the accused had abducted the victim, filed a written report (Ex.P4) at Police Station Balouda on 07.04.2020, on which First Information Report No. 77/2020 (Ex.P5) under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. During the investigation, a site map (Ex.P7) of the incident was prepared. During the search on 08.04.2020, the accused brought the victim to the Masturi police station, then the victim was recovered and the recovery panchnama (Ex.P1) was prepared. After taking consent letter (Ex.P2) from the victim and her parents, the victim was sent to District Hospital Janjgir for medical examination, where Dr. Mamta Jagat examined the victim and prepared a report (Ex.P11) and made two slides of the internal discharge of the victim and advised FSL examination. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) before a Judicial Magistrate and under Section 161 3 Cr.P.C. before a woman police officer. On production of the victim, the original mark sheet of class 10th was recovered from her and seizure sheet (Ex.P.3) was prepared and the Activa motor cycle was seized from the accused and a seizure sheet (Ex.P.10) was prepared. The accused was arrested and an arrest sheet was prepared and he was also medically examined. The slides prepared by the doctor during the medical examination of the victim were seized and a seizure sheet (Ex.P.9) was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after other necessary investigations, the charge sheet was presented before the Court of Special Judge, POCSO, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and while framing the charges, accused/respondent denied the charges. During the trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as may as 13 witnesses and statement of the accused/respondent under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and he used to sell clothes by hawking and the victim's family has robbed him and falsely implicated him. The accused has not examined any witness in his defence. 5. After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the accused/ respondent, and therefore, acquitted the accused/respondent from the offence charged vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2022 hence, present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 6. Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing 4 for the applicant/State would submit that the learned trail Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses without there being any strong reason to discard their evidences. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence that at the time of incident i.e. 04.04.2020, the prosecutrix was minor has been proved from High School Mark- sheet (Article A/3), which is duly corroborated by the statement of victim (PW-1) and statement of mother of the victim, wherein they have specifically stated that date of birth is 23.02.2003, which makes is it crystal clear that the prosecutrix though was above 16 years of age on the date of incident, but below the age of 18 years. He also submits that the learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the Court statement of the prosecutrix wherein she had specifically stated that the accused/respondent has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. He further argued that it is settled position of law that the evidence of prosecutrix alone is sufficient enough to hold the accused guilty for commission of rape and the same does not require corroboration from any independent sources. He lastly submitted that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in not believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses especially the victim (PW1) and acquitted the accused/respondent only on the basis of minor omission and contradictions. 5 7. We have heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the applicant/State and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. Learned Special Judge, POCSO, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) while acquitting the respondent has observed that there is a serious contradiction in the evidence of the victim's mother and father regarding the birth and age of the victim and in which school and by whom the victim was admitted and it is not proved on what basis the date of birth of the victim is written in the school document mark sheet (Article A/3). Apart from this, the victim's maternal uncle (PW-8) has stated in para No. 3 that on 02 February 2020 the victim's birthday was celebrated, at that time the accused had knowledge that the victim was 18 years old. Thus, the evidence presented by the prosecution does not prove that the date of birth written in the mark sheet of the victim is correct and she below the age of 18 years on the date of incident which took place on 04.04.2020. It has been further observed that according to the evidence of the victim (PW-1), she did not tell the police in her statement that the accused had forced physical relations on her, the said evidence shows that the victim was a consenting party. Thus, the crime alleged against the accused is not reasonably proved beyond all doubt. Therefore, the sections under which the accused is being tried, the prosecution has failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, which creates grounds for doubting the prosecution’s case and it is well established principle 6 of law that the accused always gets the benefit of doubt and thus, giving the benefit of doubt, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent. 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 10. Recently, 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." 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra