State of Chhattisgarh Vs Surendra Patel

For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Adv., on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶13

15/10/2025

¶14

1. Heard on admission.

¶15

2. This appeal under Section 378(1) of CrPC has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.03.2022 passed by First FTSC (POCSO)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Special Sessions Trial No.121/2020 whereby respondent Surendra Patel has been

¶16

2

¶17

acquitted of the charges under sections 354, 354B, 506-II of IPC & Sections 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶18

3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that due to illness of the victim/complainant, her elder brother brought a Baiga, the accused Surendra Patel from village Dhuma on 16.11.2020 to get her cured. The accused came around 08.30 pm and took the victim into a room on the pretext of exorcism and asked her brother and father to stay outside the room. The door of the room was open and the curtain was drawn. The accused made her sit on the floor and he himself sat in front of her. The accused gave the victim one or two grains of rice kept in his fist and asked her to swallow them. He asked her to come forward and made her lift her clothes till the waist and then opened the chain of her frock and tried to outrage her modesty by touching her body in an inappropriate manner. When the victim objected, the accused said that by doing so she would recover soon. The victim then tried to run away but the accused caught her hand and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Then she came out of the room in fear and in the morning she informed her mother about the above incident. On the basis of written report Ex. P-1 made by the victim in Sirgitti Police Station, Bilaspur on 18.11.2020, FIR was registered

¶19

3

¶20

against accused Surendra Patel. After completion of investigation, the respondent/accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 354, 354B, 506-II of IPC & Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶21

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The statement of respondent / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶22

5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondent/accused of the aforesaid offence. Hence, the appeal.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court suffer from perversity inasmuch as they are against the weight of evidence and based on conjectures. The acquittal has resulted from mis-appreciation of material evidence and incorrect application of legal principles. Such a perverse and unjust acquittal calls for interference by the appellate Court in exercise of its powers under law. The judgment of acquittal, therefore, deserves to be set aside, and the accused/respondent be convicted and punished under the

¶24

4

¶25

offence for which he was charged.

¶26

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused 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. He submits that there are several contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the victim and her family members entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police passed in Criminal Appeal No.1098 of 2024 on 11^th March, 2024.

¶27

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned trial Court.

¶28

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, in the case of “State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram” reported

¶29

in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 , has held as follows:-

¶30

“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

¶31

5

¶32

possible at all.”

¶33

10. Coming to the facts of the present case, the prosecution case is based on the testimony of the victim (PW-2), her mother (PW-1), father (PW-4) and brother (PW-6). However, perusal of their statements reveals that in a room of the house of victim, the accused is said to be performing PujaPath with the victim sitting in front of her while her father and brother were standing outside the said room and her mother was sleeping in the adjacent room. The statements of the victim and her mother regarding informing about the incident are contradictory. The victim's mother states that the victim informed her about the incident on the same night whereas the victim herself states that she didn't inform her mother about the incident on the same night due to her mother being asleep and she informed her mother about the incident the next morning. Her father states that when the victim came out of the room, she appeared normal and didn't tell anything about the incident. The statements of the victim and her family members are contradictory and raise doubts about the credibility of their testimony.

¶34

11. The victim has admitted in cross-examination that the chain of her frock was at the back, which would have required the accused to get up to open it, and she didn't

¶35

6

¶36

scream during the incident, which seems unlikely given the presence of her family members. The victim did not even leave the room and tell her father and brother about the incident who were outside the room, which does not appear credible.

¶37

12. The victim and her mother have given inconsistent statements about recognizing the accused, initially stating they didn't know him, but later admitting he was a friend of her brother and would visit their home. The accused's familiarity with the family is further established by the victim's brother, who stated they had a good relationship. The defense witness, Basant Kumar, has stated that he went to the victim's house with the accused on the evening of the incident for exorcism and returned with the accused due to a dispute with the victim's mother and brother.

¶38

13. In this case, the incident is said to have occurred on 16.11.2020 at about 8:30 pm, but the report was filed two days later on 18.11.2020 at about 21:18 pm. The delay in lodging the report (two days) is also suspicious, and the reasons given (fear and social stigma) are unconvincing. Apart from this, there are omissions and contradictions in the police statements and court statements of the victim and her family members, which make the credibility of their statements doubtful. As such, the circumstances of the

¶39

7

¶40

case, including the location and the behavior of the victim and her family members, raise doubts about the prosecution's story.

¶41

14. Learned trial Court, after analysis of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove that the victim was a minor girl on the date of incident but has failed to prove that the accused used criminal force on the minor victim with the intention of outraging her modesty, lifted her clothes and opened the zip of her frock to disrobe her and threatened to kill her. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal. After reassessing the entire evidence and in the light of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to draw a contrary finding. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶42

15. The present appeal against acquittal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.

¶43

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶44

Khatai

State of Chhattisgarh v. Surendra Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Surendra Patel

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

Kartik Ram Patel Vs Radheshyam Patel

Goverdhan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rupendra Behra

Suresh Kumar Kosti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gandhulal Dewangan

Prem Chandrakar Vs Ramdayal Verma