Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.28 14:59:45 +0530 2025:CGHC:15041-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 162 of 2018 • • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.). versus ... Appellant
Legal Reasoning
Prakash Mahto @ Gorkha S/o Shri Kaushal Kishore Mahto, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Village Shantinagar, Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.). .. Respondent For Appellant/State Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent Ms. Yashasvi Singhi, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 28/03/2025 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 05/10/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surguja (Ambikapur) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.80/2015, whereby, the 2 Respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC and also under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”). 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 03/07/2015, the victim, a boy, who was in Observation Home at Ambikapur, for the offence committed by him for murder, was watching T.V. in the recreation room around 9:30 PM and, at the relevant point of time, the respondent/accused came and took him in the bathroom and has committed an unnatural sexual intercourse with him. It is alleged further that on 09/07/2015, he has narrated the entire incident to one Chandrama Yadav, the In-charge Superintendent of Observation Home, Ambikapur, who in turn, on 10/07/2015 lodged the report, before the Police Station, Gandhi Nagar and, based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC. During trial, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P-10 and was sent for the medical examination, which was conducted by Dr. Vivek Bhatnagar (PW-4), who has submitted the report vide Ex. P-14. After completion of the usual investigation, the concerned Investigation Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ambikapur against the Respondent, in connection with Crime No.151/2015 with regard to the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and, the charge was, 3 thereafter framed against him under Section 377 of IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which was 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 10 witnesses and has exhibited 26 documents, while none was examined by the Respondent in his defence. 4) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the victim (PW-2), vis-a- vis, his MLC report (Ex.P-14), held that the respondent was not involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the Trial Court, holding that the Respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the victim and others’ of his roommates, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, while inviting attention to the statement of victim (PW-2) and MLC report (Ex.P-14) of him, done by Dr. Vivek Bhatnagar (PW-4), 4 submits that the alleged offence has been registered against him falsely and, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, based upon the incident occurred on 03/07/2015, when the respondent, alleged to have committed unnatural sexual intercourse with him. In order to establish the alleged allegation levelled against the respondent, the victim was examined as PW-2, who, however, has not supported the alleged allegations as was disclosed by him to said Chandrama Yadav, the In-charge Superintendent of the Observation Home, Ambikapur. It is to be seen further the MLC report (Ex.P-4) of the victim, which was conducted by Dr. Vivek Bhatnagar (PW-4) would show that no any positive finding in anus region was found, nor any abnormality was found in the said region and even no external injury was seen when he was examined by the said Doctor on 11/07/2015. It, thus, appears that no offence as such was, in fact, committed by the respondent upon him and it reveals further from his (victim’s) statement, particularly, paragraph 6 that under the pressure, he has levelled the alleged allegation against the respondent. That apart, one Ramjan Husain (PW-9) and Navin Kashyap (PW-6), who are his roommates and alleged to have seen the incident, have, however, 5 not supported the alleged allegation levelled against the respondent and even Monish Sahu (PW-10), who was alleged to have been the eye witness, has also not supported the same. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent was involved in any manner with regard to the alleged incident, occurred on 03/07/2015 with the victim and, the Trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 9) In view of above, the appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant