Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Kiran Kumar Dewangan, S/o Shri Mahesh Ram Dewangan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
What is the standard of proof required for convictions in sexual offenses? What are the elements required to constitute the offense of voyeurism under Section 354C of the IPC? What constitutes sexual harassment under Section 11 of the POCSO Act, 2012?
Key Points: - The appeal was filed against an acquittal judgment for offenses under Section 354(C), 509 of IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 67-A of the IT Act, 2000 (!) . - The prosecution alleged that the accused took a photograph of the victim and circulated a video with obscene comments (!) . - The complainant admitted in cross-examination that the video was a school video, did not depict a private act, and contained no obscene scenes (!) . - A key witness for the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act turned hostile and stated he signed a blank paper on police instructions (!) . - The victim testified that they were discussing project files and not engaged in any illicit activity (!) . - The trial court found no private act depicted in the video and insufficient evidence for offenses under Section 354(C) of IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act (!) . - The trial court also found no offense under Section 12 of the POCSO Act as the victim did not support the case and no sexual harassment was proven (!) . - The appellate court emphasized that for Section 354(C) of IPC, the captured image must pertain to a private act, which was not proven (!) . - The court noted that for criminal intimidation, there must be a threat of injury to cause alarm, which was not alleged in the FIR (!) . - The definition of sexual harassment under Section 11 of POCSO Act requires sexual intent, which was not proven by the prosecution (!) . - The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt (!) . - Appellate courts should be slow to interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or only one reasonable view consistent with guilt is possible (!) (!) . - The acquittal appeal was dismissed as the trial court's order did not warrant interference (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1. The victim’s father has filed this acquittal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO) Act, 2012 in Special Criminal Case No. 47/2016 by which the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 354(C), 509 of IPC read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short “Act of 2000”).
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.06.2016, victim’s father lodged an FIR before the Police Station Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 242/2016 for commission of offence under Section 354(C), 509 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused alleging that the complainant’s daughter is student of Class 12th in Shubh Sai Public School Katgi and the accused is also studying in the same school and during the study, he took photograph of the victim and circulated the video in which some obscene comments were made against the victim. It is also the case of the prosecution that the whats app group
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt for convictions in sexual offences; acquittal is justified if evidence does not meet this burden.
The act of glancing at a minor outside her house does not constitute voyeurism under IPC; no privacy or sexual intent was proven.
Sexual harassment of girl child – Alleged expression [xxx I Love You] by accused alone would not constitute “sexual assault” as provided under Section 7 of POCSO Act.
The court upheld the applicability of POCSO Act offences while quashing charges under the JJ Act, affirming that the police could investigate without a Magistrate's order.
The prosecution failed to establish credible evidence to support charges of stalking and harassment against the respondent, leading to the upheld acquittal.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions and lack of medical evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution's burden was not met due to substantial inconsistencies in witness testimonies; thus, a conviction was unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
