Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Hemsingh Tarak on 24 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1488 of 2020
State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Police Station Fingeshwar,
District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
Hemsingh Tarak S/o Khorbahara Ram Tarak Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village- Jamgaon, P.S. Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For State/Petitioner : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
Date : 24/11/2021
1. Heard on application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378
(3) of Cr.P.C. as well as on admission.
2. This Cr.M.P. has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal
dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Special Court (POCSO & Rape Cases), Gariyaband (C.G.) in POCSO Case
No. 25/2020 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of the
charge under Sections 341, 354, 354(a) of IPC and Section 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2017 at about 9:45 hours
when the prosecutrix/victim was going to school, on the way between
village Rajkatti and Jamgaon, accused stopped her with intention to
outrage her modesty and committed sexual assault upon her by pulling the
kurta and dupatta and touching her body. After usual investigation, charge
under Sections 341, 354, 354(a) of IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act was framed and the same was read and
explained to the respondent/accused, which he denied and his plea was
recorded.
4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many
as 14 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied
the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded
innocence and false implication in the case.
5. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial
Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges levelled
against him. Hence, this present petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the State/petitioner would submit that from the
ocular and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the alleged
charge has been proved against the respondent/accused, despite that
learned court below unnecessarily doubting the credibility on the evidence
available on record extended the benefit of doubt by acquitting the
respondent/accused, which is perverse and unsustainable in law.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the State /petitioner and
perused the record of court below including judgment impugned with
utmost circumspection.
8. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence and
recorded finding of acquittal. After going through the statements of
prosecutrix (PW-5) and other important witnesses namely Radhika Sahu
(PW-2), Bhama Sahu (PW-3), Smt. Bharti Sahu (PW-6), Smt. Chandika Sahu
(PW-7), Ku. Geetanjali Chakradhari (PW-8) and Smt. Amoliya (Dhruv) PW-9,
who have not supported the case of prosecution. The prosecutrix has gone
to the extent of stating that she does not even know the accused and in
the cross-examination she has clearly stated that nothing was done to her
by the accused. As the prosecutrix herself has not remained firm and has
ended up by stating that she does not even know the accused and he has
not done anything, the finding of the learned trial Court that the
prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, does not suffer
from any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is of the view that
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court does not require
any interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.
Consequently, the Cr.M.P. stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
H.L. Sahu
