NAFR State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Balauda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh v. Awadhram Khunte S/o
Case Details
1 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.06.18 12:17:52 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 520 of 2019 NAFR State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Balauda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant versus Awadhram Khunte S/o Shri Bisahuram Khunte Aged About 24 Years R/o Pahripara Khisora, Police Station- Balaida, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Appellant/State For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 13/06/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 01.06.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Janjgir, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.43 of 2015, by which, the respondent herein has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.06.2015, at about 12:00 hours, the respondent, in order to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix, held her hand during fetching the water from the bore- well. On being objected by the brother of the prosecutrix, he assaulted 2 the prosecutrix on the head with a stick saying that she is defaming him. After MLC of the prosecutrix, X-ray of the injury was conducted. The stick used in the incident was seized on 26.06.2015 at about 23:50 hours. The respondent was arrested. 3. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded and articles were seized. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The respondent was charged with an offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he claimed innocence and false implication. No defence witness was examined. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and the learned trial Court, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable and as such, acquitted the accused/respondent from the aforesaid charge. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the trial Court has committed an error of law in acquitting the respondent from the aforesaid charge. He submits the prosecutrix has categorically deposed against the respondent, therefore, the acquittal of the respondent is bad in law. He further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought before it in its proper perspective and erroneously acquitted the respondent. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the respondent may be imposed the adequate punishment under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 6. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent, though notice has been served. 3 7. I have heard learned counsel for State/appellant and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is a well settled legal proposition of law that the Appellant Court has all power to appreciate the evidence and arrive to its own conclusion. It is also settled that the finding of acquittal may not be disturbed until and unless the finding recorded is perverse to the evidence brought before it. On the assessment of evidence, if two views are possible, the finding in favor of the acquitted accused cannot be disturbed easily. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984 has held in para 8 which reads as under:- “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.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen vs State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440, has held in para 25 as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 11. Submission was made that the prosecutrix has spoken against 4 the respondent. The learned trial Court, in paragraph 31, after the assessment of the evidence brought before it gave the following finding:- “31.Thus, from the above discussion, it is concluded that in the incident of 22/06/2015, the accused in this case had a head injury, in relation to which a case was registered against the brother of the prosecutrix Amarlal and another person Vijay Prakash Sharma under Sections 294, 506 Part-2, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. On the basis of the compromise made by the accused (Avadharam) with the accused in the said case, the brother of the prosecutrix and Vijay Prakash Sharma have been acquitted in the said sections by the JMFC Akaltara. It is also concluded that the eyewitness to the incident, Dheeraj Kumar, did not support the evidence of the prosecutrix's statement that the accused had caught hold of her hand. Under these circumstances, the evidence given by the prosecutrix (PW-3) in the said regard cannot be accepted as it is not supported by the evidence of the witnesses present at the time of the incident. As far as the question of support of the evidence of Bharti Khunte (PW-4) is concerned, she is the real sister of the prosecutrix and is an interested witness. The prosecutrix herself (PW-3) has not stated in her examination in chief that her sister Bharti Khunte has also seen the incident, she has stated that the incident was seen by Dheeraj Kumar. In such a situation, the said statements of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and Bharti Khunte (PW-4) cannot be trusted. Therefore, in the said situation, the accused is certainly entitled to get the benefit of doubt and be acquitted. As a result, giving the benefit of doubt, the accused Avadharam Khunte is acquitted from charge under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.” 12. Though, the prosecutrix has stated that her hand was held by the respondent, but on due assessment of the evidence prosecutrix and another witnesses, the finding which has been recorded by the learned trial Court is paragraph 31 appears to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence. It cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence. 13. In light of the judgments cited herein above with regard to the powers of Appellate Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings of the learned trial Court. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal, being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Vaibhav