1. This appeal preferred by the State/Appellant is directed against the judgment dated 23.9.1999 passed in Criminal Case No.161 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod, District Durg acquitting the Respondent/accused of the charge framed under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 1.3.1999 Complainant Triveni Ratre, PW1 submitted a written report, Ex.P1 alleging that on 24.2.1999 at about 5:00 p.m., the Respondent/accused, who, at the time of incident, was a Lecturer at Government Higher Secondary School, Badgaon and where she was a student of 11th standard, during the period of practical, asked the other students to go out, but asked her to stay there and thereafter he caught her hands and kissed her cheek. On the basis of the written report, Ex.P1, a crime under Section 354 IPC was registered on 1.3.1999 vide First Information Report, Ex.P3. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Respondent for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Charge was framed against him under Section 354 IPC.

3. To rope in the Respondent/accused, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the Respondent was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in his defence.

4. Case of the prosecution is mainly based on the evidence of Complainant Triveni, PW1 and Toran, PW2. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Triveni, PW1 and Toran, PW2, found that their evidence is suspicious. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate First Class did not rely upon their evidence and acquitted the Respondent of the charge framed against him. Hence, this appeal by the State.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/State argued that Triveni, PW1 and Toran, PW2 are reliable witnesses. PW1 lodged a prompt written report, Ex.P1, which contains the name of the Respondent/accused. The impugned judgment of acquittal is erroneous on facts and law and it is not sustainable in the eyes of law as there is sufficient legally acceptable evidence to conclude the guilt against the Respondent. The Trial Court ought to have believed on the version of the Complainant and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as their testimonies cannot be discarded without any cogent reason. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court are improper.

6. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and opposed the above arguments.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record minutely.

8. Complainant Triveni, PW1 has deposed that on 24.2.1999 at about 5:00 p.m., after the period of practical, the Respondent asked her to stop in the practical room. She stayed there. Thereafter, he caught her and kissed her on the cheek. Thereafter, other students came in the practical room to keep back the articles of practical. Thereafter, leave was declared in the school and, therefore, all the students went out of the school. She has further stated that on the same day, she informed her parents about the incident. Two days thereafter, she informed her friend Toran, PW2 about the incident. She has further stated that in connection with the incident, police had come to the school and at that time she had given her written report, ExP1 to the police.

9. Toran, PW2 has deposed that on the date of incident, she had not gone to the school. On Saturday, when she went to the school, Triveni, PW1 informed her about the incident.

10. Santosh PW3, Ramsingh PW6, and Tijiyabai PW7, brother, father and mother of Complainant Triveni, respectively, have stated that Complainant Triveni, PW1 had informed them about the incident on the date of incident itself. Triveni, PW1, in her cross-examination, has stated that at the time of incident, she had not shouted nor