State Of Chhattisgarh through the Incharge, Police Station Shankargarh vs Dileshwar

Arvind Singh Chandel, J

Heard on I.A. No.1 for condonation of delay of 98 days in filing the instant Cr.M.P. On due consideration of the reasons mentioned in the I.A., it is

allowed and delay is condoned.

Heard on admission and perused the impugned judgment, statements of witnesses and other documents available.

Vide impugned judgment dated 13.11.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj in Special

Sessions Trial (POCSO) No.16 of 2017, the Trial Court has acquitted the Respondent of the charges framed under Section 294 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (henceforth 'the POCSO Act') in the alternative Section 354 of the

Indian Penal Code.

There is no dispute on the point that on the relevant date, age of the prosecutrix (PW1) was about 17 years. She, in her Court statement, has only

stated that at the time of incident, when she was along with her friend, the Respondent came to her and asked her when did he abuse her parents, she

should go with him to her parents and asked them and thereafter he ran away from there. She has not stated anything else other than the alleged act

of the Respondent. This witness has been declared hostile. Rajendra Paikra (PW2), father of the prosecutrix has also not supported the case of the

prosecution. Likewise, Manita (PW3), sole eyewitness of the incident has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Both Rajendra Paikra and

Manita have also been declared hostile. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record. Thus, the

Trial Court has rightly acquitted the Respondent.

I find no substance in the instant application for grant of leave to appeal. The application (Cr.M.P.) is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage

itself.