Bemetara Chhattisgarh v. Raja Chandrakar S
Case Details
1 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26 12:27:21 +0530 2025:CGHC:35299-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2299 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station- Bemetara, District-Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Raja Chandrakar S/o Lakhan Chandrakar Aged About 22 Years R/o Sukhatala, Out Post Khandsara, P.S. Bemetara, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.07.2025 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. 2 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 04.11.2024 passed in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 15/2024, by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara, District whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (j) (n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a crime got registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the unknown person on the report of the victim's father to the effect that on 10.03.2024, after having dinner they all went to sleep at around 11:00 p.m. in the house and his daughter (victim) slept in a separate room. When the complainant woke up at around 03:00 a.m. in the morning, he found the main door of the house was opened. Then he went to victim's room and checked, she was not in the room, then the complainant searched for her in the vicinity of the house and among relatives, but her whereabout could not found. It was the grievance of the complainant that his daughter is a minor girl to whom some unknown person, knowing her to be a minor, has lured and taken away from his protection. 5. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 13 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. 3 6. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 04.11.2024 acquitted the respondent/accused herein from the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal. 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 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 47 and 48 as follows:- “47. I have further noticed that the counsel for the accused has taken a plea that the victim has taken a plea in her police statement that the physical relation was established 06.03.2024, however, when she stepped into the witness box, she has deposed that on 11.03.2024, the accused beat and took her at the field and had established the physical relation with 4 her and as such her testimony is not trustworthy, however, I have noticed that the counsel for the accused had admitted the physical relation of the accused with the victim when he put the suggestions regarding physical relations of the accused with the victim in such way and manner which would give an impression that the physical relations of the accused and the victim has been admitted by the accused and also not confronted the previous version of the victim contained in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. where she has given the date of physical relation as 06.03.2024, however, in witness box, she deposed that on 11.03.2024, the accused took her in the filed and beat her and established the physical relation with her. Perusal of the testimony of P.W.11 Chandrakiran Rajput (Medical Officer) would demonstrate that the victim has got no internal and external injury on her body. P.W. 13 Subhash Singh (Investigation Officer) deposed in the cross examination that he has found in the investigation that there was a love affair between the victim and the accused at prior occasion. 48. Thus, cumulative effect of re-appreciation of the prosecution case would demonstrate that the victim was a consenting party to establish physical 5 relations with the accused and considering the fact that the prosecution has brought on record no sufficient admissible evidence to prove that on the date of the incident, the victim girl was below the age of consent. Therefore, in view of above, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has ever kidnapped/abducted & committed the rape with the victim or commits penetrative sexual assault on the victim since it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was under the age of the consent at the time leaving the house and it has already proved that the victim was a consenting party to establish physical relations with the accused. So, it would not be safe to convict the accused on merely conjectures and surmises." 10. 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. 6 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. In the present case, the victim has alleged that the respondent took her forcibly, when she went out at night to answer the call of nature, and established corporeal relation with her forcibly on the same day. She has further stated that she has solemnized the marriage with the accused in the temple and she got photographs also. She has also admitted the fact that she had a love affair with the accused. 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 Jyoti/Gowri