An appellate court should not reverse an acquittal if the trial court's view is a legally plausible one, unless there is patent illegality, perversity, or a clear error of law or fact.

Judgment on Board

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.06.2018 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Case/FCT Case No. 71/2017, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 363, 366-A and Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated are that on 12.10.2017 the complainant at Saja Police Station lodged an oral complaint alleging that his minor daughter had been lured and abducted by the accused Domendra Sahu. As such, on the basis of the oral complaint, the crime was found to have occurred and hence the Police Station registered a named F.I.R. against the accused Domendra Sahu under Crime No. 374/17 for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the investigation, a spot map vide Ex. P/02, spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex. P/03 and also Recovery Panchnama were prepared vide Ex. P/06. Thereafter, a documented Panchnama was prepared. The medical examination of the victim and the accused was conducted. The mark sheet and the School admission Register/ Dakhil Kharij Register of the victim/prosecutrix were seized and the statement of the victim/prosecutrix was recorded before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate and before the Child Welfare Committee under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, statements of necessary witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and charges were framed against the accused/respondent.

3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present accused/respondent before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the offence under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent of the offences levelled against him. The learned trial Court has not justified by giving too much significance to the minor omissions and contradictions that appeared in the prosecution evidence, especially that of the victim (PW-03) who narrated that the entire incident happened with her. Learned trial Court has not justified in holding the victim/prosecutrix to be a consenting party in light of specific allegation made by the victim regarding her kidnapping whereas the prosecutrix herself has admitted the commission of offence by the accused/respondent. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence of Dr. Nidhi Meshram (PW-12) in its correct perspective, who medically examined the prosecutrix and affirmed the commission of sexual assault. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its true perspective and has succumbed to the conjectures and surmises. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the victim was minor, aged about 14 years, 07 months and 05 days at the time of occurrenc