Safiya Malik

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas has dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused under Sections 451 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court concluded that the prosecution "was unable to prove the offence against the accused" and held that the trial court's decision to acquit did not suffer from "perversity or illegality warranting interference." The appeal, filed under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was therefore dismissed.

The appeal arose from a judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (FTSC) under the POCSO Act, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, in Special Sessions Case No. 26 of 2023. The trial court had acquitted the accused of the charges related to alleged sexual assault on a minor boy.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order On Kakiho Village Recognition | Directs Nagaland Government To Reassess Public Objections And Follow Due Process

The case originated from a complaint lodged by the mother of a 10-year-old boy (PW-1). According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 09.08.2022 between 2:00 PM and 3:00 PM when the child was alone at home. It was alleged that the respondent, a former tenant, entered the room, cuddled the child, and while caressing him, twisted his scrotum, causing severe pain and eventual removal of one testis.

The mother lodged a complaint (Ex. P-1) at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, which led to the filing of an FIR (Ex. P-2). The child was initially treated at Maharani Hospital and later referred to MPM Hospital, where surgery was conducted.

The prosecution presented documentary evidence including medical reports, sonography, discharge notes, and maps. Witnesses examined included the mother (PW-1), elder mother (PW-2), school principal (PW-3), several doctors including Dr. R.K.S. Raj (PW-4), the child victim (PW-5), the father (PW-6), and other officials and neighbours.

The accused, in her statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations, claiming false implication due to a dispute over the return of her gold ornaments. She stated that she had vacated the rented house on 27.07.2022, prior to the alleged incident.

The prosecution stated the reliability of the testimonies, particularly that of the child, arguing that Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act should have been applied to presume culpability.

Conversely, the defense pointed to inconsistencies in the medical evidence and the delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR. Dr. Abhijit Chikhalikar (PW-8), who conducted the sonography, reported that both spermatic cords and left testes were normal. Dr. Virendra Kumar (PW-7) stated that the right testis was removed due to lack of blood flow, but acknowledged that such a condition could occur naturally or due to unnoticed injuries. Dr. R.K.S. Raj (PW-4) observed no swelling on the scrotum during his examination on 10.08.2022.

The victim (PW-5) confirmed in court that he had difficulty sitting or standing after the incident. However, he also admitted that the accused had vacated the premises on 27.07.2022 and could not provide an exact date of any earlier inappropriate behaviour.

The court recorded: "Prosecution was unable to prove the offence for which the complainant was discharged as the victim has given contradictory statement and the medical expert... has unable to prove that the victim has caused injury by the accused by twisting his scrotum."

It was noted that the medical testimony failed to establish a direct link between the injury and the accused: "The doctors who are the expert in their respective field has clearly stated that the injury caused to scrotum of the victim may be happened due to urinal infection or while playing."

On the applicability of presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Just Rights for Children Alliance vs. S. Harish:

"The statutory presumption of culpable mental state on the part of the accused... can be made applicable provided the prosecution is able to establish the foundational facts necessary to constitute a particular offence... Such presumption can be rebutted by the accused..."

Justice Vyas observed: "In the present fact and circumstances of the case, the prosecution was unable to prove the offence... the accused has left the rented house on 27.07.2022... prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the offence of house trespass."

"The doctor R.K.S. Raj (PW-4) who has examined the victim on the next date of incident has stated that he has not found any swelling on the scrotum of the victim."

The court further stated that the trial court had conducted a detailed appreciation of evidence: "Learned trial Court after elaborate appreciation of evidence has acquitted the respondent No.2 from the charges giving benefit of doubt which is neither suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this court."

Also Read: Karnataka HC Upholds Toll Deductions Based On Bus Classification | FASTag Mismatch Not A Ground For Exemption

Justice Vyas referred to the precedent laid down in Constable 907 Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, stating: "It is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted... only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity... and that no two reasonable views are possible."

The High Court dismissed the appeal with the following directive:

"This Court is of the view that the impugned judgment acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 of the offence under Sections 451, 325 IPC and 10 of the POCSO Act is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is hereby dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate

For the Respondent/State: Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Deputy Advocate General

For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Varun Sharma with Mr. Harshad Vyas, Advocates

Case Title: XYZ vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:22596

Case Number: ACQA No. 1126 of 2024

Bench: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

[Read/Download order]