Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

25.04 .2024

1. I.A. No. 01 of 2024, is an application for condonation of delay of 290 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 25.11.2022 passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act and SC/ST Act) No. 29/2021 by the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with Crime No. 83/2019, registered at Police Station Antagarh, District – North Bastar, Kanker by giving benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/ mother of the prosecutrix has lodged a written complaint before the Police Station Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kaner on 19.11.2019 to the effect that, her minor daughter prosecutrix went somewhere on 17.11.2019 since 10 am in the morning without informing the family and they searched her in the nearby places, but she could not be traced out and it is apprehended that, some unknown person has abducted her. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, the offence has been registered and the matter was taken into investigation and during investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered and in her statement, the prosecutrix has stated that the accused respondent has forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage resulting which, she got pregnancy. Thereafter, the Nazri Naksha of the spot was prepared and the certain articles like age proof of the prosecutrix were seized. After recovering the prosecutrix, the medical examination of both accused respondent and the prosecutrix were done and the statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing certain formalities, the accused was arrested, as he had committed continuously aggravated penetrative sexual assault with the prosecutrix and had outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix by taking her away from the legal possession of her parents, who is a minor girl below 18 years.

4. After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under aforementioned sections against the accused respondent before the learned trial Court. The accused respondent adjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as may as 18 witnesses and exhibited 64 documents in its favour.

5. After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the accused respondent, and therefore, acquitted the accused respondent from the offence charged vide impugned judgment dated 25.11.2022 hence, present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal.

6. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General 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. The prosecution had examined as many as as 18 witnesses and exhibited 64 documents in its support. The learned trial Court has committed error of law in not believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and acquitting the accused/respondent only on the basis of minor omission and contradictions.

7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the applicant/State and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal.

8. Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) while acquitting the accused res