HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 96 / 2017
State of Rajasthan
—-Appellant
Versus
Megha S/o Kishna, by caste Bheel R/o Pachhmata, Police Station
Railmagra, Distt. Rajsamand.
—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Singh Rathore, PP
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Order
31/07/2017

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)
[CRLLA-96/2017]

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

claimed trial.

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)
[CRLLA-96/2017]

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)
[CRLLA-96/2017]

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

proved.

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.

(Sangeet Lodha),J.

Aditya/