IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1077-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: September 03, 2025 State of Haryana .....Appellant (s)

Vs.

Surinder Kumar ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Mr. Shiva Khurmi, DAG, Haryana for the appellant.

----

R AMESH KUMARI J. (ORAL)

CRM-32691-2023 Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 148 days in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by affidavit of the concerned official, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay as it is settled principle that each and every day's delay is not to be explained. Accordingly, delay of 148 days in filing the aforesaid application is hereby condoned.

CRM stands disposed of

1. The present application has been filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 419(3) of BNSS) by the State for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2022 rendered by the then learned Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Special Court, under POCSO Act), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, in FIR No.215 (Ex.P-18), dated 27.08.2020, under Section 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act), at Police Station Chhachhrauli.

2. Record reveals that FIR (Ex.P-18) against the accused was registered on the basis of complaint (Ex.P-4) of PW-2-victim alleging that on 27.08.2020, at around 3:00 p.m., she had gone to the house of Mayank son of accused-Surinder, who is studying alongwith her to bring the copy of school work. When she went to the house of Mayank, respondent/accused was alone at the house. He caught hold of her arm and took her to his bathroom, situated on the roof of the house and after removing her lower, committed bad act with her. After reaching her home, she informed her sister about the incident, who told her mother. She also informed her family members that accused threatened her that in case she disclosed about the occurrence to anybody, he would kill her.

3. Initially FIR (Ex.P-18) was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which was later on deleted and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was added. Statement of witnesses were recorded during investigation. PW-4 was got medically examined. Accused was also got medically examined. Medical and forensic samples were duly parceled, deposited with police and sent to FSL. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before learned trial Court.

4. Learned trial Court complied with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 230 of BNSS) and charge under Sections 376 (3), 506 IPC and Section 5 (M) (P), punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act was framed on 12.01.2021 and the accused pleaded no guilty.

5. The respondent-accused is granted benefit of doubt for the charges which was framed against him under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that though the age of victim is proved to be 12 years 5 months, since her date of birth is 26.03.2008 and she was minor on the date of alleged incident but the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused. Therefore, in view of evidence on record and totality of circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused, he is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

6. The learned trial Court appreciated the evidence and rendered the findings on the merits of the case but has not specifically framed any point for determination. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding this application, the following points for determination are framed:-

(i) Whether the prosecutrix was minor at the relevant time?

(ii) Whether the respondent/accused