State Of Chhatisgarh vs Satyanarayan Paikra

Heard on admission.

2 This petition has been filed under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against the judgment impugned dated

24.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surguja (Ambikapur) / Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.

07/2017 acquitting the respondent/accused Satyanarayan Paikra of the charge under Sections 363, 366, 120-B, 354 IPC and 7 read with 8 of the

POCSO Act and further acquitting respondent/accused Smt. Arti of the charge under Sections 366-A, 120-B IPC and 16 read with 17 of the POCSO

Act.

Facts of the case in brief are that on 29.04.2016 at about 7 PM the minor prosecutrix (PW-5) was taken away by the respondent/accused

Satyanarayan from her village Bhapoli in connivance with the other accused Arti with an intention to compel her to marry him and submit to him for

sexual intercourse. On criminal law being set in motion by way of FIR registered at the instance of the father of the prosecutrix, respondents/accused

were prosecuted for the said offences and after completion of investigation, challan was also filed against them under the same sections followed by

framing of charge accordingly.

In order to prove the complicity of the respondents/accused in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses.

Defence however did not adduce any evidence in support of its case.

After hearing the parties, the Court below acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them. Hence this petition by the

State seeking leave to appeal.

Counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the Court below has erred in law in disbelieving the statements of the witnesses and eventually

resorting to acquittal of the respondents/accused.

Heard counsel for the State/petitioner and perused the material available on record.

Here the prosecutrix (PW-5) herself has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. While deposing in the Court she

has specifically stated that on the date of incident she had left for village Govindpur in the company of her sister-in-law (the respondent No.2 herein)

to attend a marriage function, and as her father did not find her at home, a report was lodged by him. She has further stated that respondent/accused

Satyanarayan had not taken her anywhere nor did he do anything with her.

Thus in view of the evidence of the proseuctrix who is the only material witnesses in this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is

no infirmity or illegality in the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. Even otherwise, the settled

legal position in the like cases is that when the facts of a case give rise to two possible and plausible views, the one preferential to the accused has to

prevail.

In the result, leave to appeal sought for by the state is hereby refused and the petition is dismissed.