The appellate court affirmed the acquittal due to lack of compelling evidence warranting interference with the trial court's findings.

... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Shri A. D. Kuldeep, Advocate Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board

18.06.2025

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section

378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO and Rape Matters) Gariyaband (CG) in New POCSO Case No.49/2020, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused SATISH TUMANE with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) of IPC and also under Sections 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children Digitally from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, signed by SATISH TUMANE

2012”).

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 08.11.2018, a report was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-5), who was a student of Class-8th, before the Police Station Rajim, stating therein, that since last about 15 days, the respondent had been stalking and harassing her on her way to school, despite clear indication of disinterest. It is alleged further that the conduct of the respondent was informed by the prosecutrix to her father, who in turn, had informed about the incident to the father of the respondent. On 08.11.2018, while the complainant was going on bicycle along with cousin (PW-1), the respondent along with co- accused forcefully stopped her bicycle and the respondent, then, caught hold of her hand and started expressing his affection. It is alleged further that after much effort, the complainant got freed herself from the clutches of the respondent and rushed to her home and informed her parents about the incident. It was also informed that at the time of the incident, her brother (PW-9) was also reached at the spot and the respondent and co-accused had assaulted him.

3. Based upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered by the Police Station Rajim vide Crime No.319/2018 against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) and 323/34 of IPC and also under Sections 8 & 12 of the Act, 2012. During the course of investigation, the statement of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and after completing the usual investigation, the charge- sheet was submitted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, where the charges with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above have been framed against the respondent, which were denied by him and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent has not committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) of IPC and also under Sections 8 & 12 of the Act, 2012, while convicting him under Section 323 of IPC and, being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment acquitting the respondent from the commission of the offence under Sections 341, 354, 354(D) of IPC and also under Sections 8 & 12 of the Act, 2012, the instant appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecutrix (PW-5), her cousin (PW-1) and the brother of the prosecutrix (PW-9), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent as such.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed