Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (KOHIMA BENCH)
Manish Choudhury, J.
State of Nagaland and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Krishnanandan Paswan - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 5(K) of 2018
Decided On : 18-10-2019
Indian Penal Code – Section 354A(2) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 8, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – Acquittal – Benefit of doubt – Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred against the judgment and order passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, in G.R. Case – By the said judgment and order Special Judge acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges under Section 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on benefit of doubt, setting the respondent at liberty, if he is not wanted in any other case – Held, It is to be kept in view that the presumption of innocence is available to the accused and in criminal jurisprudence, every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the trial Court. – An order of acquittal shall not be lightly interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by his acquittal by the trial Court. It is also settled legal proposition that if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. – It is also settled that the prosecution must stand on its own legs by bringing in the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and it cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence case. – It is only in respect of a case where an acquittal is based on misconception of law or based on irrelevant grounds, the appellate Court can review the evidence for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether only one conclusion, that is of conviction, can be arrived at on the evidence on record. – For the purpose of ascertaining the same, the evidence on record have been re-appreciated, reconsidered and reviewed in the case in hand. Having gone through the same, this Court do not find any compelling and substantial reason to interfere with the ultimate conclusion, reached by the learned trial Court, of acquittal of the respondent on benefit of doubt as in the considered opinion of this Court, all the evidence on record have been duly considered by the learned trial Court in reaching its conclusion. – Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the CrPC", in short) is preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kohima, Nagaland in G.R. Case No. 234/2016 (Special Case No. 5/2016). By the said judgment and order dated 15.06.2018, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges under Section 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code ("the IPC", in short) and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the POCSO Act", in short) on benefit of doubt, setting the respondent at liberty, if he is not wanted in any other case.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.11.2016, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged before the Officer In-Charge of Women Police Station, Kohima by one Mr. Medozeu Rio (P.W. 2), Chairman of Kezieke Welfare Board, Kohima against the respondent-accused alleging, inter-alia, that the respondent, a tenant of Kezieke Colony, had been abusing and molesting the boys around his neighborhood. It was further alleged that the respondent had lured his neighbourhood boys in the last week of October, 2016 by offering money and sweets in order to get the boys fondle his private parts forcefully. It was further alleged that the respondent requested the boys to call two minor girls by offering them more money. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Women Police Station, Kohima registered a case being Kohima Women Police Station Case No. 6/2016 under Section 354A(2), IPC read with Section 8, POCSO Act and endorsed the case to one Vikuobinuo (P.W. 5), ASI for investigation.
3. In course of investigation, the respondent was arrested and also was stated to be thoroughly interrogated The statements of the alleged victims (minor boys) were also recorded apart from other witnesses. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (LO.) of the case i.e. P.W. 5 submitted the charge sheet under Section 173, CrPC finding a prima facie case under Section 354A(2), I.P.C. read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, against the respondent Pursuant to submission of the charge sheet, the appearance of the respondent was caused before the trial Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kohima and on his appearance, the learned Special Court considered the matter of framing charge under Section 354A(2) IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act and framed charges accordingly on 08.03.2017. On charges being explained to the respondent-accused, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to bring home the afore-mentioned charges against the respondent-accused, examined 6 (six) Nos. of prosecution witnesses viz. P.W. 1 - Vikerile Thapru, Inspector and Officer In-Charge, Women Police Station, Kohima; P.W. 2 Mr. Modozeu Rio, Chairman, Keziekie Welfare Board, Kohima i.e. the informant; P.W. 4 - Mhalo, an official in the Women Police Station, Kohima; P.W. 5 - Vikuobinuo, I.O. of the case; P.W. 6 - first alleged minor victim boy P.W. 7 - second alleged minor victim boy. After me examination of the prosecution witnesses, the respondent was examined under Section 313, CrPC. The defence adduced no evidence during the trial. After the trial, learned Special Court by the said impugned judgment and order dated 15.06.2018 had acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges and the same is being assailed in the present appeal by the State.
5. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Public Prosecutor (P.P.) assailing the judgment and order of acquittal, has submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and by an erroneous appreciation of the evidence on record, had returned the finding of acquittal, whereas, there are sufficient materials on record in respect of the charges framed against the respondent to return a finding of conviction. She further submits that
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
