Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1086 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Appellant 1 - Nav Krishna Das @ Naba Krishna Das S/o Late Goshtha Bihari Das Aged About 60 Years R/o House Of Sushmita Bhuiya, Mayur Vatika, Sejbahar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Parmanent Address Village Panch Gechiya, Police Station Daspur, West Bangal. ... Respondent For Appellant/State For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Decision
Order on Board 02/09/2025 1 This appeal is preferred under Section 14(A)(1) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against the judgment dated 09.01.2024 passed by learned Special Jude (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.09.04 11:34:27 +0530 2 in Special Criminal Case No.21/2023 whereby the said Court has acquitted the respondent for commission of offence under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with Crime No. 162/2023, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District – Raipur (C.G.). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 12.04.2023, the victim/complainant lodged a written report before the police station Kotwali, District Raipur, stating that she is currently studying classical music at Shriram Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Budhapara and has been a student of Vid Prathama for the last five years. On 09.04.2023, the Vid Prathama examination was from 3 to 6 pm, after which leaving for hostel Lily Chowk, at that time, accused/respondent, who was teacher, started telling her that her absence in the class is very high, which will have to be improved, I will come after arranging the exam paper, you wait here for five minutes. On this, the victim sat down to wait in the verandah there. After a while, the accused/respondent came and asked her to go to the classroom. When he went to the classroom, he asked her to sit, but she sat on the ground. At that time, there was no one else in the class except her and the accused/respondent. After making her sit, the accused/respondent went out for two to three minutes and 3 then came back to the class and locked the door from inside and suddenly came from behind with bad intentions and held her in his arms with both hands and kissed her forcefully. 3. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was lodged and charge under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) act were framed against the accused/respondent. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the accused/respondent of the aforesaid offence. Hence, the appeal. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that in the present case, every witness was examined before the trial Court and they have supported the case of the prosecution and established the case beyond any reasonable doubt. He further submits that the FIR was lodged by the victim only after a delay of 3 days on 12.04.2023, which the victim has explained. Hence, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper and bad in law, and the same is liable to be set aside. 4 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the trial Court has passed the judgment after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, which does not call for any interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned trial Court. 7. Looking to the material available on record, it is clear that the date of the incident was 09.04.2023, and the written complaint and the FIR were lodged on 12.04.2023 after a delay of 3 days. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim recorded before the Court, which have been elaborately discussed by the trial Court in para 23 of its judgment. Apart from this, it is clear that the incident took place in a college campus where, except the victim and the respondent/accused, some other staff would be there, and the victim had a mobile phone, but the victim did not inform anyone about the said incident even nor made any alarm. Moreover, looking to the statements of the Principal of the University, Radha Pandey (PW-6), senior teacher, Rajshri Namdeo (PW-5) and the studying students of the college, who stated in favour of the respondent/accused that the respondent could not do the act. 5 8. 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.” 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down in the appeal against acquittal. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence and recorded a finding of acquittal. After reassessing the entire evidence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no reason to substitute a contrary finding. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. 10.Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu