AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 347 wordsRam Prasanna Sharma, J
Heard on IA No.01/2019 for condonation of delay in filing the petition.
On due consideration, the application is allowed and the delay of 80 days in filing the petition is hereby condoned.
Also heard on application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC.
This petition is preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.6.2018 passed by Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act') Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG) in Special Criminal Case No.30/2017 wherein the said Court acquitted
the respondent for the charges under Sections 354D, 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
In the present case, prosecutrix is PW-1. She deposed in her examination-in-chief that on the date of incident she was standing on the terrace of
the house at about 6.00 pm, the appellant came there and asked her for conversation and when she denied, he slapped her. But this witness is not firm
in her statement deposed in examination-in-chief. In her cross- examination she deposed that the respondent did not slap her but tried to slap her. She
further deposed that the respondent came to her house on the date of incident for the first time. Looking to the entire evidence, the trial Court opined
that it is not a case where respondent followed the prosecutrix repeatedly. Therefore, charges levelled against him is not established and harassment
on the part of the respondent is also not established. Other witnesses cited by the prosecution are either hearsay witnesses or they did not depose
anything against the respondent. Looking to the entire evidence the trial Court opined that charges levelled against the respondent is not established.
After reassessing the entire evidence, this Court has no reason to record a contrary finding. It is not a case where the respondent should be called
for full consideration of the matter.
Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the CrMP stands dismissed.