IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA th ON THE 6 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 241 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

VICTIM (''X'')

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI JITENDRA SHARMA-ADVOCATE) .

AND

1. SHANU @ SOURABH ROY S/O JAGDISH ROY, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, YADAVNAGAR AGAR ROAD NAKA MAIN ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. CHIMANGANJ UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the complainant/victim against the judgment of acquittal of respondent No.1 dated 28.11.2019 whereby the respondent No.1 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 509, 447, 354 of Indian Penal Code (in short '' IPC'') and Section 7/8, 11 (i)/12 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( in short '' POCSO'') by the Special Judge (POCSO)/ 6th Additional Session Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) in Session Trial No.485/2018.

The case of prosecution is as under:-

Signature Not Verified

2. On 12.08.2018, the complainant lodged an FIR against the respondent No.1. According to the victim on 06.11.2018 near about 05:00, the accused entered into the house and caught hold her hand with bad intention. She tried to cry but he closed her mouth. She did not report this incident to her mother. Thereafter, on 11.08.2018, near about 07:30 PM, when she was standing infront of his house, the respondent No.1 shown bad gesture by saying that he loves her. She went inside the house and narrated the incident to her mother. Today, her father come from outside, then she report the matter to the police. On the basis of above, offence under Section 354 of IPC and under Section 7/8 of POCSO has been registered against the respondent No.1.

3. The statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate on 13.08.2018. The Police arrested the respondent No.14.08.2018. Police also recorded the statement of other witnesses. Collected the documents pertaining the age of victim. The charge-

sheet was filed before the competent Court.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Krishna Thakur (PW-

1), Victim (PW-2), Kamal Singh (PW-3) and Mona Jadon, Sub Inspector (PW- 4). In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the respondent No.1 denied all the charges and pleaded that the victim alongwith her family resided in rented house of his father. His father asked them to vacate the house, therefore in intention to grab the property, false report has been lodged. Civil Suit has already been for eviction.

5. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Court found various omission and contradiction in the statement of the victim, unexplained delay to lodge the FIR, civil dispute between the parties and relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P. reported in, AIR 1973 Signature Not Verified SCC 2773 in which it has been held that on the basis of probability, the accused cannot be convicted. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has been acquitted for the offence mentioned in para 1 of this Judgment. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the victim submits that when FIR was lodged there was no civil litigation between the parties, the Civil Suit was filed by the father of the respondent No.1, therefore the learned Trial Court has wrongly held that because of civil dispute, the respondent No.1 has falsely been implicated.

7. In appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal, the scope of interference is very limited. Although the victim has supported the case of prosecution in the Court but in cross examination, she admitted that on 06.08.2018 to 11.08.2018, she regularly went to the school which is 5 kilometer away from her house. The distance of Police Station -Chimanganj is five minute away from her house but she did not lodge any report on 06.08.2018, when the respondent No.1 said to have entered in her house and tried to molest her, at