(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 419(1)(b) of BNSS to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent / accused passed in SplSC.No.46 of 2023 dated 26.05.2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act Cases, Theni and convict the respondent / sole accused for the offence committed by him under Section 366 of IPC and Section 8 and 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.)

1. The State has preferred this appeal as against the judgment dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act Cases, Theni in SplSC.No.46 of 2023. The appellant has prosecuted the respondent that he had abducted a minor girl and had committed sexual assault. The trial court has framed charges under Section 366 IPC and Sections 8 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. In conclusion of the trial, the trial court has acquitted the respondent of the charges that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved over the same, the State has filed this appeal.

2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the age of the victim girl was 14 years at the time of occurrence. The victim girl has stated that the respondent had physical relationship with her at Melur. However without considering this evidence of the victim, who was examined as PW3, the trial court has erroneously acquitted the respondent. The occurrence had taken place on 29.11.2020. The appellant gave counselling to the victim, only then she had disclosed the sexual assault committed by the accused and thereafter the complaint was lodged on 05.12.2020. Therefore, this delay of 6 days cannot be a material delay and in such type of cases, these grounds cannot be a reason for acquitting the accused.

3. He further submits that the victim girl was subjected for medical examination and the Doctor, who examined the victim stated that her hymen was not intact and also found there was abrasion. The trial court has taken note of some contradictions in the evidence of PW3, when she was examined under Section 164 of CrPC. These are very minor contradictions and the same has been considered for acquitting the respondent. The trial court has failed to consider the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prayed that the appeal be entertained.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that that the mother of the minor girl has given a complaint at Bodi Taluk Police Station on 29.11.2020 that her daughter was found missing. Based on this complaint, a petition enquiry was conducted in the appellant police station in CSR.No.610 of 2020. During the enquiry the victim has voluntarily appeared before the police station and stated that she went out of the home voluntarily and was not inclined to go with her mother. Therefore, the victim minor girl was referred to a children welfare home. Thereafter on 05.12.2020 another complaint was given by the mother of the minor girl in the appellant police station, based on that an FIR was registered in Crime No.2333 of 2020 against the respondent under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The minor girl was subjected to medical examination before the medical officer on the same day and a final report has been filed in a mechanical manner.

5. He further submits that in the trial the prosecution has not proved the offence against the respondent. There was a delay of 6 days in lodging the complaint. The victim has not given any statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate about the sexual assault. The earlier complaint dated 29.11.2020 and the enquiry in CSR No.610 of 2020 have been suppressed. The letter said to have been written by the victim before recording deposition in her house has not been produced. The parents of the victim have not given any statement before the investigation officer that victim was sexually assaulted by the respondent. Considering the defects in the prosecution case the trial court has acquitted the accused and therefore, according to him there is no ground for entertaining the appeal.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.

7. Before going into the merits of the case, since the appeal is filed as against an order of acquittal, it is necessary to bear in mind the principles governing the appeal against acquittal, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Sejappa v. State [(2016) 12 SCC 150], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed its own decision in Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka [(2014) 5 SCC 730]. The guidelines issued in the said decision are extracted hereunder:

                   “23. ... ... (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;

                   (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;

                   (iii) Though, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and

                   (iv) Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court."

8. In yet another decision in the case of Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal:

                   “(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

                   (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts on limitation restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

                   (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reaons', good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

                   (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

                   (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.”

9. The State has preferred this appeal as against the order of the acquittal passed by the trial court in SplSC.No.46 of 2023, dated 26.05.2025. The State has prosecuted the respondent for the offence under Section 366 IPC and under Sections 8 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. Even according to the prosecution the victim was found missing from her house on 29.11.2020 for which the complaint was lodged by PW2. However, this complaint was treated only as a petition enquiry in CSR No.610 of 2020. The victim girl voluntarily appeared before appellant police on 02.12.2020 and on her return, the enquiry in CSR No.610 of 2020 was closed by the appellant on 02.12.2020. Thereafter PW2 preferred a complaint before the appellant on 05.12.2020. Based on this complaint, the case was registered by the appellant on 05.12.2020 and the respondent was arrested. Thereafter the victim girl was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 10.12.2020 has stated that she had gone along with the respondent voluntarily and they had stayed in a place, where the respondent had kissed her. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police conducted investigation and filed a final report as against the respondent for the offence under Section 366 IPC and Sections 8 and 4(2) of POCSO Act.

10. During the trial the victim was examined as PW3 in chief on 10.12.2021, wherein she has stated that the respondent has taken her to his relative's house, stayed and they had physical relationship also. The case of the prosecution revolves around the statement of the victim child, who was examined as PW3. It appears that the victim went away from the house on 29.11.2020. On the complaint of her mother, a petition enquiry was conducted in CSR No.610 of 2020. However, this CSR was closed on 02.12.2020 itself. The available evidence discloses that PW3 refused to go along with PW1/ her mother. Therefore, she was referred to a home. She has stayed in the home for 5 days. After 5 days the complaint was lodged on 05.12.2020, that the respondent had abducted her and had physical relationship with her. After this complaint dated 05.12.2020, the victim girl was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam on 10.12.2020 for recording her statement under 164 CrPC, wherein she has stated that she voluntarily went along with the respondent and stayed in a place, where this respondent had kissed her. However, during the evidence, she has deposed that the respondent had physical relationship with her.

11. Under the POCSO Act, the prosecutions are laid solely based on the statements made by the victims. In this case the victim appeared before the appellant police on 02.12.2020 and on that day she did not state anything as against the respondent / accused. Thereafter, a different version has been taken in the complaint dated 05.12.2020, as if the respondent had abducted her and had physical relationship with her. After 5 days, on 10.12.2020 when she had appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC, she has stated a different version than what had been stated in the complaint. Therefore, the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent.

12. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra and also in view of the above discussion this Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal on the grounds raised by the appellant herein. Accordingly this criminal appeal is dismissed.