State Of Chhattisgarh v. Ganpat Sonkar

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2024ACQA/123/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal; Section 378 CrPC standard; Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440 para 25; double/strengthened presumption of innocence in favour of accused; possible view of trial court; Section 354 IPC outrage of modesty; Section 7 POCSO Act sexual assault; prosecutrix/schoolgirl intercepted en route to High School Examination on 19.3.2013; FIR Ex.P/1 lodged 25.5.2013; age of prosecutrix not proved; father's FIR not proved; absence of independent witnesses; Section 313 CrPC statement; State appeal dismissed; acquittal maintained; Sessions Case No. 7/2013 FTC Rajnandgaon; ACQA No. 123 of 2014.

What did the court decide?

None; the State's appeal against the acquittal was dismissed, leaving the respondent/accused's acquittal intact. ¶judg. para 8 (¶28)

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Ganpat Sonkar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 123 of 2014

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ganpat Sonkar S/o Fagua Sonkar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Keshla, Police Station Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

(Cause Tile downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶11

For State/Appellant Mr. Anand Verma, Dy. GA For Respondent Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate

¶12

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶13

Judgment On Board

¶14

9/1/2024

¶15

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.7/2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Rajnandgaon (CG), whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the charge under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 7 of the POCSO Act for commission of offence of sexual assault with an intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant (PW-1).

¶16

Prosecution case, in brief is that on 25.5.2013, the complainant lodged an FIR -Ex.P/1 alleging that on 19.3.2013, in the morning,

¶17

¶18

at 8:00 AM, when she was going to the School for appearing in the High School Examination from Village (K) to Village (A), the respondent/accused intercepted her, caught hold of her hand with a bad intention and on account of such act of the accused, she fell down from the cycle. Thereafter, the accused proposed the prosecutrix for marriage and in case of denial, he threatened to take her away. When the prosecutrix returned home after the examination, she narrated the incident to her mother (PW-2). Mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2), on being informed about such incident by her daughter, intimated the same to her husband (PW-3). The father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) stated that on the same date of the incident, he had lodged an FIR in this regard, but no FIR has been proved during trial. The parents of the prosecutrix further deposed that after such incident, they had sent the prosecutrix to the house of her Phupha (PW-6) at village (J), but the respondent/accused reached there also. The father of the complainant (PW-3) and Phupha (PW-6) had seen the respondent coming to the village (J) and thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 25.5.2013.

¶19

During trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the respondent/accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶20

The trial Court vide the impugned judgment acquitted the respondent on the ground that no independent witnesses have

¶21

¶22

been examined with regard to the incident which occurred on 19.3.2013. Though the prosecutrix clearly admitted in her crossexamination that at such time, she used to go to school along with her friends (U), (UB) and sister of UB i.e. (D), but no such girl has been examined. Further, the age of the prosecurix has also not been proved, which is essential to attract the offence under the POCSO Act. The father of the complainant stated that on the same date of the incident, he had lodged the FIR but no such FIR has been proved. In view of the above infirmities, the trial Court acquitted the accused.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

In the matter of Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 , in respect of scope of appeal against acquittal, the following was observed vide para 25 :

¶25

While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, 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 analysed. 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.

¶26

¶27

Revering back to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid principle and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also considering the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly taken the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the view taken is a possible one, which does not require any interference by this Court.

¶28

The appeal, therefore, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶31

Judge

¶32

Shyna

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Ganpat Sonkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Ganpat Sonkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohanlal Vs Pyarelal and Ors.

State of C.G. Vs Babadeen Malik

Omprakash Jain Vs Smt.jamuna Devi Thakur

Smt. Dhaneshwari Vs Ramcharan Sahu

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Pradeep Kumar Tiwari