-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....................................................................................................................................................................................................

ORDER

This order shall govern the disposal of CRA Nos. 9660 of 2023 and 7483 of 2023 as both the appeals arise out of the common judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2023 passed in Sessions Case No. 24/2021. This criminal appeal has been preferred under the statutory provisions of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking appellate intervention against the impugned judgment. The appellant herein, aggrieved by the final decision rendered by the learned trial court, has approached this Court to challenge the validity and legality of the order of acquittal. The core objective of this appeal is to seek a complete reversal of the findings that led to the exoneration of the accused.

The challenge in the present appeal is specifically directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur. The said judgment was pronounced in Sessions Case No. 24/2021, whereby the entire prosecution story was disbelieved by the trial court. The appellant asserts that the learned subordinate court has committed a grave error of law in passing the said impugned judgment.

FACTS IN BRIEF

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of 05.03.2021 at approximately 5:00 p.m., the minor complainant was entirely alone at her residence. The record indicates that her parents had gone away to work as labourers, and her brother had gone to fetch water from a government hand pump situated a little distance away from the house. At the relevant time, the complainant was engaged in sweeping the open courtyard space situated just outside her residential premises.

It is further alleged by the prosecution that while the complainant was sweeping the said open space, the accused, JS , who resided in the immediate neighbourhood, approached her. The prosecution claims that the accused caught her right hand with malicious intentions and explicitly stated that he wanted to do something wrong with her. The accused allegedly attempted to entice her and drag her towards a nearby drain to perform indecent and wrongful acts against her will.

Resisting the said attempt, the complainant reportedly freed herself, hit the accused with a broom, and immediately ran towards the hand pump to narrate the ordeal to her brother. The brother subsequently informed their parents via phone, and upon their swift arrival, the family contacted the authorities by calling dial 100. The complainant, accompanied by her father and brother, then travelled in the police vehicle to the police station to formally lodge the First Information Report (Exhibit P-1), leading to the registration of Crime No. 50/2021.

Following the registration of the crime, the investigating agency conducted a medical examination of the complainant on the same day, marking it as Exhibit P-3(A). On 06.03.2021, a spot map of the incident location (Exhibit P-2) was prepared, and the complainant’s formal statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded before the competent court. Subsequently, relevant school registers certifying the victim's age were seized (Exhibit P- 5), the accused was arrested, and upon the completion of the investigation, the final charge-sheet was presented before the court on 25.03.2021.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is inherently liable to be set aside as it stands contrary to settled law and principles of natural justice. It was forcefully argued that the trial court has committed a serious and manifest error by not rationally analysing the statements and ev