Court’s Decision
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the State’s petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of four accused in a case involving allegations of abduction, trafficking, and repeated sexual assault of a minor, holding that the scope of interference in appeals against acquittal is extremely limited. The Court noted that unless the trial court’s view is “impossible or perverse,” interference is impermissible, and even if two views are possible, the acquittal should not be overturned merely because the appellate court finds conviction more probable.
Facts
The case arose from a complaint by the victim’s father alleging that on 26 November 2020, his minor daughter went missing from their home. He suspected abduction, leading to registration of an FIR under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, charges were framed against four individuals under IPC provisions including Sections 366(A), 370(4), 467, 468, 471, 372, 374, 376(2)(n), and relevant sections of the POCSO Act, alleging that the victim was abducted, trafficked using a forged Aadhaar card to increase her age, and sold for Rs. 1.5 lakh for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
The trial involved examination of 16 prosecution witnesses, including the victim and her parents. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused due to lack of corroborative evidence regarding the alleged fake Aadhaar card, the alleged forced marriage and sale, and the victim’s minority status, observing that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the victim’s testimony and corroborative statements of her parents.
- Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the offences of abduction, trafficking, forgery of documents, and sexual assault on a minor.
- Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal against the acquittal.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The State argued that the trial court erroneously discarded the victim’s testimony and the corroborative evidence of her parents without any valid reason. It was contended that the testimony of the victim clearly described how she was lured, detained, and later sold to one of the accused using a fake Aadhaar card, which was corroborated by evidence showing seizure of an edited photocopy of the Aadhaar card indicating a changed date of birth to 01.01.1997. The State asserted that minor contradictions and omissions in prosecution evidence should not result in acquittal in a serious case of trafficking and repeated rape of a minor, and thus, the trial court’s acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents relied upon the findings of the trial court, highlighting that the prosecution failed to produce the original forged Aadhaar card or any evidence regarding where, by whom, and with which electronic device the alleged forged Aadhaar was created. Further, no corroborative evidence such as marriage documents, registry entries, or testimonies of witnesses from Guna (where the marriage allegedly took place) were produced to substantiate the claims of forced marriage and sale. The respondents contended that the trial court rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s minority at the time of the alleged incident and failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, warranting an acquittal.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined the principles governing interference with acquittal, relying on established jurisprudence that interference in appeals against acquittal is permissible only when the lower court’s view is “impossible or perverse.” The court emphasized that even if two views are possible based on the evidence, the appellate court should not interfere merely because it may have arrived at a different conclusion. The court also scrutinized the alleged discrepancies and the prosecution’s failure to produce critical evidence, including the original Aadhaar card and marriage documents, which were necessary to establish the victim’s age and the alleged trafficking and sexual offences.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram (2022 SCC OnLine SC 984), wherein the Supreme Court held:
“Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable.”
This precedent was directly applied to hold that the trial court’s findings could not be reversed as its view was neither impossible nor perverse.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that:
- The prosecution failed to produce the original forged Aadhaar card, evidence of who created it, and on which device.
- No marriage documents or testimony from individuals involved in the alleged forced marriage were brought on record.
- The victim’s minority was not established through reliable evidence, making it difficult to sustain charges under the POCSO Act and related IPC sections.
- The trial court had assessed the evidence and found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of the above, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s acquittal was a plausible view based on the evidence, and interference was unwarranted.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the State’s Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal, reiterating that the scope of interference in appeals against acquittal is narrow and limited to cases where the lower court’s findings are impossible or perverse. The appeal was consequently dismissed for being devoid of merit.
Implications
- Reinforces the limited scope of appellate interference in acquittal cases, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to prove its case with corroborative evidence, especially in serious offences under the POCSO Act.
- Highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in overturning acquittals to prevent wrongful convictions where evidence is insufficient.
- Stresses the importance of meticulous investigation and documentation in cases involving allegations of trafficking, forgery, and sexual offences.
FAQs
1. What did the Chhattisgarh High Court decide in the child trafficking and sexual offences case?
The High Court dismissed the State’s petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal, holding that acquittals cannot be interfered with unless the lower court’s view is impossible or perverse.
2. Why did the trial court acquit the accused in this case?
The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of corroborative evidence on key issues such as the victim’s minority, forged Aadhaar card, and the alleged sale for sexual exploitation, leading to the prosecution’s failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
3. What legal principle was applied by the High Court while dismissing the State’s appeal?
The court applied the principle that in appeals against acquittal, interference is justified only if the lower court’s findings are impossible or perverse, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram.