Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32168-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.11 18:22:56 +0530 CRMP No. 2160 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner Tirathlal Choudhary S/o Mannu Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Chowki Latori, Police Station Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Respondent For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 11.07.2025 1. I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.02.2025 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 2 33/2022 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC, Surajpur, District:Surajpur, C.G. whereby the District & Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376AB, 506B of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim has lodged a written complaint vide Ex.P-3 on 23.06.2022 against the accused/respondent in Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur to the effect that she is 13 years old and lives with her Father/accused. According to the victim, her mother has married with another man and left the house. On the date of incident, when she was sleeping at home at night, her father/accused started touching her with wrong intention and had made physical relations with her after removing her cloths, when she started screaming, he threatened to kill her if she tell the incident to anyone. 5. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Statements of the respondent under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein he has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and he is innocent. 6. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 24.02.2025 acquitted the respondent/accused herein from the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal. 3 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law and the evidence available on record. He submits that the allegations leveled by the victim upon the respondent/father were proved by cogent evidence, but the learned trial Court has not considered the evidence which supported the case of prosecution. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the material & evidences and acquitted the respondent, which is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 8. We have perused the judgment passed by the trial Court along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal with utmost circumspection. 9. Learned District & Additional Sessions Judge FTSC, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 66 and 68 as follows:- “66.Undoubtedly, in the present case, a daughter has alleged that her father had raped her forcefully for two years continuously, which is certainly a serious allegation, but the Court can consider the prosecution story to be proven not merely on the grounds mentioned by the prosecution in the case but only on the basis of reliable and cogent evidence presented by the witnesses before it. But in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix is not being corroborated by medical evidence/FSL report. It is also appearing in the case that there is delay in lodging of 4 FIR and no satisfactory explanation given by the prosecution in this regard. In such a situation, the statements of the victim herself is not credible and of sterling quality. In such a situation, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond doubt and it is found appropriate to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant/accused. 68. Therefore, in the absence of reliable evidence, the offence against accused under Section 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376AB, 506B of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO has been found "not to be proved" beyond doubt. As a result, accused is "acquitted" of the aforesaid charges." 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.” 5 11. In the present case, the victim has alleged that the respondent had committed intercourse forcibly with her for two years continuously, but during the said period of two years, the prosecutrix has admitted in her statement that she had a mobile phone and despite the said fact, the prosecutrix did not tell her mother, her maternal uncle or any other friend about the alleged incidents, which makes the allegation doubtful against the respondent. Apart from that, it is noteworthy to mention here that in the written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, she has not mentioned that the respondent/father had threatened her not to disclose anything about the incident to anyone and the prosecutrix has not given statement before the Court, in this regard. 12. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/State and other evidence available on record, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record. We do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and consequently, acquittal appeal is also dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib