Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 9896
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Gariyaband – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Yadav – Respondent
CRMP No. 699 of 2024 | POCSO Case No. 76/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate
For the Respondents:
Prosecution must prove a minor's age beyond reasonable doubt; acquittals maintain a high standard against appeal.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 378 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Court of Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of charges under IPC and POCSO Act due to prosecution's failure to prove the victim's age. (Para 2)
(B) Evidence - Court emphasized that the evidence of the prosecutrix can be sufficient for conviction and should not require corroboration, as per established legal principles. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleged abduction and rape; however, the trial court found evidence insufficient to establish her age as under 18.
Findings of Court:
The acquittal was upheld due to the prosecution's failure to sustain its burden of proof regarding age.
Issues: The main question was whether sufficient evidence existed to corroborate minor status and resulting crime allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that acquittals carry a high burden for overturning, reliant on establishing either impossible or perverse reasoning.
Result: Leave to appeal denied; appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the prosecution case and acquittal process. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments by the appellant regarding shortcomings in the trial court's findings. (Para 6) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence and trial court's decision-making. (Para 8) |
| 4. outcome and conclusion of the court's decision. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 5. legal principles governing appeals against acquittal. (Para 10) |
on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
02.04
.2024
1. I.A. No. 01 of 2024, is an application for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing the appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed.
2. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.07.2023 passed in POCSO Case No. 76/2021 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Ramesh Kumar Yadav) by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act & Rape Cases), Gariyaband (C.G.) whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted from the charge punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was below the age of 18 years.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.09.2021, the prosecutrix (PW-1) made a written complaint (Ex.P-1) to the Police Station, Devbhog, District Gariyaband alleging that the accused/respondent had abducted her from lawful guardianship on the pretext of marriage and further committed rape upon her between 20.04.2020 to 01.09.2021 in rented house. During course of investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Anju Sonwani (PW-5), who gave MLC report (Ex.P-20). In respect of proving age of the prosecutrix, School Admission Register (Ex.P-15) was seized. Case diary statement of the prosecutrix alongwith other witnesses have been recorded. Further statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of prosecutrix was also recorded.
4. After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the respondent/accused was put to face charges before the learned trial Court. The respondent/accused adjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as may as 12 witnesses in its favour.
5. After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/ accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.07.2023 hence, present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal.
6. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the applicant/State would submit that the learned trail Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses without there being any strong reason to discard their evidences. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence that at the time of incident i.e. 20.04.2020, the prosecutrix was minor has been proved by Assistant Teacher (PW-3) on the basis of School Admission Register (Ex.P-14), which mentions the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 10.03.2004. He also submits that the learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence of Dr. Anju Sonwani (PW-5), who had medically examined the prosecutrix and opined that sexual intercourse was done, but no definite opinion was given regarding recent sexual intercourse. The learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the Court statement of the prosecutrix though, she turned hostile, but even in cross-examination, she stood firm and stated that the accused/respondent had committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly on the present of marriage. He further argued that it is settled position of law that the evidence of prosecutrix alone is sufficient en
