1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 329 of 2016 Ramdular S/o Jhaggar Banjare Aged About 42 Years R/o Tedhibhdara, Chowki Bhatgaon, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant/Accused versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri A.D.Kuldeep, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Ram Narayan Sahu, Deputy G.A. and Shri Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 28/01/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 07.04.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.97/2015, affirming the judgment dated 03.11.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.48/2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon, Balodabazar C.G., whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 454 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 454 of IPC and further to undergo RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 354 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo additional RI for one month under each count while maintaining both the sentences to run concurrently. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.30 10:12:27 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (P.W.1) lodged a report before the Police Outpost Bhatgaon stating therein that on 19.02.2013 at 2:30 pm when she was sleeping in her room of the house after closing the door, then suddenly she saw the accused/applicant trying to hold her hand and when she woke up, the accused was trying to remove her saree and blouse, upon which, she called her aunt-in-law and accused fled away and thereafter her in-laws and husband came to her house and she narrated the incident. On the basis of report, F.I.R. (Ex.P.1) was lodged against the applicant under Sections 454 & 354 of IPC IPC. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.2 and applicant was arrested on 26.02.2009. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Bhatgaon against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned court of JMFC and appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence on record in its perspective manner, convicted and sentenced the applicant, which is erroneous and not sustainable in law. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) with regard to the incident, which was not corroborated by the contents of F.I.R. (Ex.P.1). He further submits that the report was lodged belatedly and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution in delaying the F.I.R. He also submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these premises, he urges that the present revision be allowed and the applicant be acquitted of the said charges. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while opposing the revision, submits that the finding of conviction is based on the evidence and other material available on record, therefore, no interference is called for. 3 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, it is necessary to examine the evidence on record. The prosecutrix (P.W.1) has deposed in her examination-in-chief that when she was sleeping in the room of her house, at 2:30 pm, someone was grabbing her hand, then she woke up and saw it was the accused Ramdular, who was under influence of liquor and upon seeing him, she shouted and thereafter the accused fled away and after that, her aunt-in-law, who heard her shouts came there and she narrated the incident to her and her husband, who arrived there later on and thereafter she lodged the F.I.R. (Ex.P.1). She has stated in her cross-examination that at the time of incident, there was no door in her room and on the date of incident, the main door was not locked. But, as against her statement, in the F.I.R. (Ex.P.1), it was written that door of her house was closed. P.W.2 husband of the prosecutrix has stated that when he returned, his wife informed that between 2.00 – 2.30 pm, the accused Ramdular came and started misbehaved with his wife and thereafter went to her aunt Bhajan Bai (P.W.3), however, on the contrary, P.W.1 proseuctrix in her evidence has stated that her aunt came to the place of incident and not she who went to her aunt Bhajan Bai (P.W.3). This creates material inconsistency in her version. P.W.2 husband of the prosecutrix, in his cross-examination, admitted that the applicant/accused works as a goat herder in the village and after the incident, the accused was grazing the goats one kilometer away from his house and further stated that he saw the accused grazing the goats after an hour of the incident. P.W.3 Bhajan Bai stated that at about 3.00 pm, P.W.1 prosecutrix came to her while shouting and narrated the incident to her. She has also stated in her cross-examination that the prosecutrix had informed her about the closure of door, but this version is not corroborated by P.W.1 prosecutrix, who has stated otherwise that P.W.3 Bhajan Bai herself came to the spot and not the proseuctrix, who went to P.W.3 Bhajan Bai and if the door was closed, then how the door could be opened by anybody is not explained by the prosecution. 4 P.W.4 Shiv Prasad has not supported the case of the prosecution whereas P.W.6 Jagmohan, who is father-in-law of the prosecutrix has denied the statement with regard to the incident as reported in the F.I.R. (Ex.P.1). P.W.5 mother-in-law of the prosecutrix has stated that when she returned to the house, then her daughter-in-law (prosecutrix) informed that the accused entered the house and started removing cloths of the prosecutrix and while shouting came out and informed to the Bhajan Bai (P.W.3) about the entering of the accused in the house and was removing her cloths, however, a perusal of statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) would show that she did not state in the examination-in-chief that the accused was removing her clothes. Besides this, P.W.3 Bhajan Bai has also not stated that the prosecutrix has informed that the accused was removing her cloths and that, P.W.5 mother-in-law of the prosecutrix has also not stated that the accused was holding the hand of the prosecutrix. A perusal of the above evidence would show that there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix and that, her statement is not corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the alleged incident occurred on 19.02.2013 at 14:30 hours, i.e., 2:30 pm, but F.I.R. was lodged at 22:30 hours, i.e., 10:30 pm in Police Outpost Bhatgaon, to which, there was no proper explanation offered by the prosecution to show as to how the report was lodged after lapse of more than 7 – 8 hours despite the fact that the Police Outpost was 3 kilometers away from the place of incident. 9. Although the law is well settled that the conviction can be maintained even on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim if her evidence inspires confidence, but it is evident that the testimony of P.W.1, the prosecutrix, is not wholly reliable, as her statement appears to be doubtful and not corroborated by the F.I.R. (Ex.P.1) and other evidence of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned J.M.F.C., and affirmed by the appellate Court are perverse and erroneous findings and are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be 5 acquitted of the charges under Sections 454 and 354 of the IPC, on the basis of benefit of doubt. 11. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned Sections and the sentence imposed thereunder are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charges mentioned above by extending benefit of doubt. 12. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of B.N.S.S. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani