State of Chhattisgarh Vs Homesh Satnami

Special Judge POCSO (FTC), Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 04/2020 whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the charges punishable under Section 452, 354, 354 D, 506 of IPC and Section 8 and 18 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶20

3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix (P.W.-02) has lodged a report against the accused that from the last 2 months while going or coming back from the school or anywhere in the village the accused used to harass the prosecutrix stating that he loves her. On 26.12.2019 at around 3:00 pm when she was alone in her house and her family members had gone to work, when the accused entered her house and molested her by holding her, pressing her mouth and pulling her inside the room. At the same time, her father reached home from duty and seeing the accused molesting her daughter, hit the accused with a wooden stick kept in the house, then the accused ran away from the house and while running away the accused threatened the prosecutrix and her father (P.W.-04) that he would kill them. After due and necessary investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the respondent/accused was put to face charges before the learned Trial Court.

¶21

4. Learned State Counsel contended that the Trial Court has not justified by discarding the evidence of victim without there being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the prosecution.

¶22

5. I have heard learned State Counsel and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶23

6. On perusal of record, it transpires that P.W.-02, the prosecutrix has stated that when she was alone in her house the accused has molested her by holding her, pressing her mouth and pulling her inside the room. At the same time, her father reached home from duty and seeing the accused molesting her daughter, hit the accused with a wooden stick kept in the house, then the accused ran away from the house and while running away the accused threatened the prosecutrix and her father (P.W.-04) that he would kill them.

¶24

3 / 5

¶25

7. Whereas, in her cross-examination that while going to school, the accused had given her a mobile pone to talk to her by saying that he loved her. Thus, it is clear that before the incident, the prosecutrix and the accused used to talk to each other. Now, it has to be considered whether on the date of incident, the accused had entered the housed of the prosecutrix and tried to drag her into the room by holding her arm? In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix had stated that on the date of incident when the accused entered her house, she did not scream and she was talking to the accused in the orchard (Baadi) then her father had seen the and hence beaten the accused. Thus, there are discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix.

¶26

8. P.W.-01, the mother of prosecutrix has admitted in her crossexamination that accused has done nothing wrong with her daughter. The witness has stated in her statement that at the time of incident her daughter was in the home and accused came being drunk and molested her daughter after which her husband (P.W.-04) had beaten the accused, but the same has not been stated in her statement before the police.

¶27

9. In the present case, the prosecutrix (P.W.-02) and her father (P.W.-04) are the eye-witnesses of the incident. Father of the prosecutrix (P.W.04) has no where stated in his statement that the accused was pulling her daughter inside the room by holding her hand, instead it is clear that the accused and the prosecutrix were talking on the mobile phone prior to the incident and even on the date of incident, it was revealed that the accused was talking with her daughter outside the door of the house. Father of the prosecutrix himself says that the accused had ran away from the door of the house. In this way, the statements of these prosecution witnesses show lack of proper evidence of the accused entering the house and holding arms and hands of the prosecutrix. P.W.-05, Yogendra Sahu has been a completely hostile witness. Also, no supporting facts have been obtained for the prosecution from P.W.02, uncle of the prosecutrix.

¶28

4 / 5

¶29

10. It is also noteworthy in the case that P.W.-04 has submitted the computer typed written report in the Arjuni Police Station. P.W.-02 has also admitted that her father had got the written report typed in the choice center.

¶30

11. From the medical evidence and report (Ex. P/6) of Dr. D.S. Dev (P.W.-03) it is found that there was slight tenderness on the right hand and wrist of the prosecutrix. There were no injury marks. Mild pain was found in the wrist when pressed. Thus, this evidence does not support the case of the prosecution.

¶31

12. In the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the incident has been narrated by the prosecutrix but her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. appears to be inconsistent and contradictory. Similarly, the evidence of other witnesses has also been unstable. In such a situation, the prosecution has not been able to prove the crime alleged against the accused due to the evidence of the said witnesses not being reliably established and proven to prove the crime.

¶32

13. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge on the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.

¶33

14. 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:-

¶34

“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 interfere would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”

¶35

15. In the present case two views are possible. Considering the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, acquitting the respondent/accused

¶36

5 / 5

¶37

from aforesaid offences, this Court does not find any reason to allow this Acquittal Appeal.

¶38

16. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Acquittal appeal stands dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

( Arvind Kumar Verma )