The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of a 21-year-old man charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for allegedly harassing a minor girl.
Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, sitting in a single bench, upheld the 2022 acquittal of the accused Rupendra Das Manikpuri, observing that the evidence on record did not establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly the requirement of “sexual intent” under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by a 15-year-old girl on October 14, 2019, at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari. She alleged that while returning from school around 4:15 PM along with her friends, the respondent shouted “I love you” to her. The complaint also mentioned prior incidents of harassment.
An FIR was registered under Sections 354-D and 509 IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused on May 27, 2022. The State filed an appeal under Section 378 CrPC, challenging the legality of the acquittal.
State’s Arguments
Counsel for the State, Mr. R. N. Pusty, argued that the trial court erred in disbelieving the prosecutrix’s birth certificate (Ex. P-3) which showed her date of birth as 29.11.2004. He also submitted that the accused had previously harassed the prosecutrix and knew of her Scheduled Caste status, thus attracting the SC/ST Act provisions.
Defence Arguments
Mr. Shobhit Koshta, appearing for the respondent, relied on the decision in Navendu Sudhir Gupta v. Honey Navendu Gupta (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2078), arguing that in the absence of any clear indication of disinterest by the prosecutrix, the act did not constitute stalking under Section 354-D IPC.
He also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 18 SCC 763], to argue that there was no evidence the alleged act was committed because the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Court’s Analysis
On Minority of the Prosecutrix:
The High Court held that the birth certificate, issued under the Janm-Mrityu Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1969 and not challenged for authenticity, proved that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident.
On POCSO Charge (Section 8):
Referring to Section 7 of the POCSO Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney General for India v. Satish [(2022) 5 SCC 545], the Court emphasized that “sexual intent” is the key ingredient for sexual assault.
Justice Agrawal concluded:
“It appears that the alleged expression of him alone would not constitute ‘sexual assault’ as provided under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. None of the ingredients provided under the aforesaid provision are, thus, found to be established.”
On Section 354-D IPC (Stalking):
The Court held that there was no clear indication of disinterest from the prosecutrix, nor any repetition of contact attempts. The requirements of “repeated” following or contact despite disinterest were not met.
On Section 509 IPC (Insulting Modesty):
The Court found contradictions between the oral testimony and the complaint (Ex. P-7). The prosecutrix’s claim that the accused used obscene language was not corroborated by her friends or parents.
On SC/ST Act (Section 3(2)(va)):
The Court found no evidence that the act was committed due to the victim’s caste status. Citing Khuman Singh, the judgment stated:
“There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste…”
Decision
The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court’s acquittal was upheld, and the State’s appeal was dismissed.
“Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.”
