HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 96 / 2017
State of Rajasthan
Megha S/o Kishna, by caste Bheel R/o Pachhmata, Police Station
Railmagra, Distt. Rajsamand.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Singh Rathore, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
1. This leave to appeal u/s. 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
State, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.7.16 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Session Case No.56/15,
whereby the accused-respondent though convicted for offences
under Section 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 ( for short ‘POCSO Act’), has been acquitted of
the charges for offences under Sections 376/511 and 354 B IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Shri
Bherulal submitted a written report at Police Station, Railmagra to
the effect that while he alongwith his wife Maya had gone to bank
for withdrawal of the payment, his daughter aged 7 years and old
mother were at home. At about 2-2.30 pm Ramesh s/o Nathulal
Jat informed him on mobile that Megha Ba s/o Kishnaji Bheel has
attempted to commit rape on his daughter. When he reached
home, her daughter told him that while she was playing outside
(2 of 4)
the house, Megha Ba took her to his house, opened her
undergarments, raised up his ‘dhoti’ and sat up on her. It was
further stated that when she cried, Ramesh Kakaji and Roshan
Kakaji came there and on seeing them, Megha Ba ran away.
3. On the basis of the written report, the police registered FIR
for offences under Sections 376/511 IPC and Section 18 of the
POCSO Act and the investigation commenced.
4. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge
sheet against the accused for offences under Sections 376/511,
354B IPC and Sections 4/18 of POCSO Act.
5. The trial court framed the charges against the respondent-
accused for offences under Sections 376/511, 354B IPC and
Sections 4/18 of POCSO Act. The accused denied the charges and
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses (PW 1
to PW 7) and rendered documentary evidence (Ex.1 to Ex.12).
The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
No evidence was led by the accused, however, the statement of
Narayan Lal recorded under Section 116 Cr.P.C. was exhibited in
evidence as Ex.D/1 on behalf of the accused.
7. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the trial
court arrived at the finding that on the basis of the evidence
adduced, the charges against the accused for offences under
Sections 376/511 and 354 B IPC and Section 4/18 of POCSO Act
are not proved. However, the accused was convicted for the
offence under Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to
simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of
(3 of 4)
Rs.1,000/- while taking into consideration the fact that accused is
82 years of age.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial
court fell in error in acquitting the accused respondent of the
charges for offences under Sections 376/511 and 354 B IPC. The
accused-respondent has been convicted for offences under
Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act and therefore, there was no
occasion for the trial court to acquit him of the charges for
offences under Sections 376/511 and 354 B IPC. Drawing the
attention of the court to the statement of Ramesh Chandra
(PW 4), learned Public Prosecutor submitted that had the said
witness not reached on the spot, the accused-respondent would
have committed rape on the prosecutrix and thus, ignoring the
evidence of prosecutrix (PW 2) and Ramesh Chandra (PW 4), the
trial court has seriously erred in acquitting the accused of the
charges for the offences under Sections 376/511 and 354B IPC.
Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial court has
failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution oral
as well as the documentary in correct perspective, which has
resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Public
Prosecutor, gone through the judgment of the trial court and the
evidence on record.
10. A perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix (PW 2) reveals
that there is no allegation that the accused attempted to commit
rape on her. In absence of any cogent evidence suggesting that
the accused attempted to commit rape on the prosecutrix, the
(4 of 4)
finding arrived at by the trial court that the offence under Section
376/511 IPC is not proved against the accused cannot be faulted
with. There is no allegation either that the accused assaulted or
used criminal force with an intention of disrobing or compelling the
prosecutrix to be naked and thus, the finding arrived at by the
trial court that the offence under Section 354 B IPC, is not proved
against the accused, also does not warrant any interference by
this court. On the basis of the evidence on record, it is also not
proved that the accused attempted to commit penetrative sexual
assault and therefore, the trial court has committed no error in
acquitting the accused for offence under Section 4/18 of the
POCSO Act and instead convicting him for the offence under
Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act on the basis of the allegations
11. Thus, taking into consideration, the statement of the
prosecutrix and other witnesses including Ramesh Chandra
(PW 4), this court is of the considered opinion that in absence of
any cogent evidence on record, the conclusion arrived at by the
trial court that the charges against the accused for the said
offences are not proved, appears to be just and proper.
12. In this view of the matter, no case for grant of leave to
appeal is made out.
13. The criminal leave to appeal is therefore, rejected.