Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 1233
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Station House Officer, Police Station Urla, District Raipur (CG) – Appellant
Versus
Raghavpal @ Murli @ Dadu S/o Satrughan Pal – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.761 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer
For the Respondents:
The court upheld the trial's acquittal, affirming the prosecutrix's autonomy and age, which negated charges of kidnapping and sexual offenses.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(L) and 6 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused on grounds that the prosecutrix was not a minor and had left her home willingly; the court found no grounds to overturn the acquittal as the judgment was not perverse. (Paras 3, 9, 10)
(B) Appeal - Condonation of delay - The court allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (Paras 1, 2)
Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleged her kidnapping and rape but was acquitted by the trial court, concluding she was major and left her home voluntarily, indicating a love affair with the accused.
Findings of Court:
The judgment of acquittal is upheld, finding no basis for appeal as her autonomy and age were considerable factors deemed valid by the trial court.
Issues: Whether the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the alleged crime and if the acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The determining factors included the prosecutrix's declared age and her assertion of consensual relations, leading to the affirmation of her being not a minor and capable of her own decisions.
Result: Application rejected; acquittal upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecutrix's missing case and recovery. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. trial court's examination and acquittal reasoning. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's evaluation of the trial court’s findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 5 .4
.2024 1. Heard Mr.Pankaj Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant on I.A.No.01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 269 days in filing the appeal.
2. On due consideration, I.A.No.01 of 2024 is allowed. Delay is condoned.
3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.03.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Second (POCSO) Fast Track Special Court, Raipur in Special Sessions Case No.95/2021, whereby the respondent / accused has been acquitted from charges under Sections 363 , 366, 376 (2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 6.4.2021 father of the prosecurtrix lodged a written complaint at Urla Police Station stating inter-alia that his daughter had left the house in between 12 to 1 at night on 6.4.2021 without informing anyone and did not return at home. He searched his daughter in the vicinity and his relatives, but he could not find her anywhere. He suspects that his minor daughter has been kidnapped by some unknown person. Upon such report, the matter was taken up for investigation and during the investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered and she disclosed that the accused established repeated physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage.
5. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the Police of Police Station Urla investigated the matter into Crime No.116/2021. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr.Rajni Chaursiya (PW-
5) who gave MLC report. Further, the doctor has also prepared two slides of vaginal swab and sent for FSL report. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC and spot map of the incident was prepared. The accused / respondent was arrested. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed charge-sheet against the accused/respondent for offence under Sections 363 , 366, 376(2) (n) of the IPC and Section 5 (L)/6 of the POCSO Act
6. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondent / accused from charges under Sections 363 , 366, 376 (2) n) of the IPC and Sections 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
7. Mr.Pankaj Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the deposition of the prosecution witnesses in their proper perspective, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and there is no material discrepancy found in the same. He further submits that the circumstantial evidence available on record including FSL report (Ex.P-17) is sufficient to prove the complicity of the accused with the crime. Therefore, leave deserves to be granted.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant / State, considered his submission and gone through the documents filed along with the petition.
9. Learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent / accused finding that the prosecutirx is not minor & she is major, particularly taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) holding that no sexual intercourse has been committed against her wishes, she is major and she herself has left her parental house on her own will and also holding that they have love-affairs. The finding recorded by the learned Special Judge holding the prosecutrix to be major is the finding based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record and it cannot be held that the prosecutrix was minor on
