An appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's order of acquittal unless the view taken is perverse or impossible, particularly when the prosecution's evidence contains substantial contradictions and omissions, as the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal.

Judgment on Board

1. This appeal under Section 378(1) of the CrPC has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 04.03.2022 passed in Special Sessions Case (POCSO Act) No.104 of 2019, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III FTSC (POCSO Act), District-Durg, CG, whereby the respondent / accused has been acquitted from the offence of Sections 354(D) and 354 of the IPC, and Sections 12 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.07.2019, the victim, PW1 lodged a written complaint, Ex.P1 to the Police that on 16.07.2019, at about 5 pm when she was enjoying bicycling, the respondent/accused came there in drunken condition, and outraged her modesty. When she protested, he threatened her. He got her down from the bicycle, by which she received injury. Based on the written complaint, FIR, Ex.P2 was registered against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(D) of the IPC, and during the investigation, Police has seized School Register with respect to age, and date of birth of the victim. The respondent/accused was arrested on 18.07.2019. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 CrPC, and statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC has also been recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent/accused before the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 354, 354(D) of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 354, 354(D) of the IPC, and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The respondent /accused denied the charge, and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 CrPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence, and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. Three defense witnesses have also been examined by the respondent in his support.

5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused from the alleged offences, holding that the prosecution could not able to prove the allegation against the respondent/accused person beyond any reasonable doubt, and there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and by giving benefit of doubt to the respondent, he was acquitted, which has been challenged by the State in the present Acquittal Appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions, or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are fully reliable, but the same has not been considered by the learned trial Court in its true perspective. The victim being the injured witness, should have been relied upon by the learned trial Court, as she herself has lodged the report and supported the prosecution case. Though there are some minor discrepancies in her evidence, but the same could not dilute the prosecution case. She would further submit that evidence of the victim PW1 is supported by the evidence of her mother PW2. It is also submitted by her that the victim has alleged the incident which she suffered by the act of respo