$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.12.2024 + CRL.L.P. 171/2021 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP with SI Pinki Rana, PS Malviya Nagar, Delhi.

versus MOHD RASHID .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sulaiman Md. Khan, Ms. Taiba Khan, Mr. Chandra Bose, Mr. Bhanu Malhotra, Mr. Gopeshwar Singh Chandel and Mr. Abdul Bari Khan, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 378(3) CrPC seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2019 passed in Sessions Case No. 7485/2016 arising out of FIR No. 184/2013 registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, whereby, the respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.05.2013, a complaint was made by the mother of Ms. ‘M’ wherein she informed that her daughter used to go to learn Quran at Madarsa and the respondent, who used to teach Quran, got hold of the hand of the daughter of the complainant and made Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.L.P. 171/2021 Page 1 of 16 By:NARENDRA SINGH her touch on his private part. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded who also reiterated the allegations. On the basis of the statement of the victim the present FIR came to be registered.

3. During the course of the investigation, the respondent was arrested and the statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the respondent for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘the Act’).

5. Having regard to the material on record, the learned Trial Court framed the charge for the offence under Section 8 of the Act, to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution examined 08 witnesses including the victim herself, who was examined as PW-1. The respondent also examined one defence witness i.e., DW1.

7. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record vide impugned judgment dated 25.10.2019 acquitted the respondent for the offence under Section 8 of the Act. Against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the present petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed.

8. The learned APP for the State, at the outset, referring to the testimony of the victim submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the said testimony in a proper perspective and has wrongly acquitted the respondent who had committed the offence, merely referring to certain contradictions and inconsistencies.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited attention of the Court to the impugned judgment to contend that a well Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.L.P. 171/2021 Page 2 of 16 By:NARENDRA SINGH reasoned order has been passed by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the respondent. He submits that after considering the testimony of the victim, the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the victim vis-a-vis her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, as well as, under Section 161 Cr.PC.

10. He submits that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is a plausible view. He further submits that it is trite law that scope of interference in an appeal against an acquittal is very limited. Unless, it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of the acquittal.

11. He further submits that it is equally settled that if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal merely because the learned Appellate Court find that the view of conviction is more probable.

12. He also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. vs.