1 2025:CGHC:15766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 880 of 2007 Butoo Raut @ Dhannu Yadav S/o Babu Lal @ Lathiya Yadav, R/o Village Loharsi, Chowki Pachpedi, Thana-Masturi, Distt.-Bilaspur, C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station – Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 03/04/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.8.2007 passed by Special Judge, under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur in 2 Special Criminal Case No.17/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- or else to suffer additional one month's RI. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.9.2006 at around 7 pm the prosecutrix (PW-6) along with her mother (PW-7) went to the field for attending the call of nature. While she was sitting there, the accused came and asked her for sexual favours. The accused caught hand of the prosecutrix and tried to outrage her modesty. Hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, her mother (PW-7) and neighbour (PW-2) came to her rescue and PW-2 snatched the club from the accused. After returning her house, the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her husband and next day lodged FIR (Ex.P/7) against the accused. During investigation, spot map was prepared, on being produced by PW-2 the club snatched by her from the accused was seized, caste certificate of the prosecutrix was seized and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was filed against the accused followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial court, to which the accused abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 3 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that there is contradiction in the statements of the prosecutrix, her mother and independent witness which makes it clear that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant after coming to know about a false case being lodged against him made a complaint on 21.9.2006 to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur vide Annexure A/3 which was not considered at all by learned trial Court. Thus, looking to the nature and quality of evidence adduced it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charge under Section 354 of IPC. Lastly 4 he submits that the appellant has already been released from jail on 16.12.2017 after getting benefit of remission. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Section 354 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him under Section 354 of IPC as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment 09. PW-6 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident at around 7 pm she along with her mother went to towards the pond for attending the call of nature. While she was sitting there, the accused/appellant came from Basti side, caught hold of her hand and took her about 15- 20 feet away and asked for sexual favours. Hearing her cries, her mother and Narbad Bai came to her rescue and Nabad Bai snatched lathi from the accused. She states that it being late night, report was 5 lodged on the next day vide Ex.P/7 which bears her thumb impression. In cross-examination she remained firm on her statement that the accused/appellant tried to outrage her modesty. 10. PW-10 mother of the prosecutrix supported the statement of the prosecutrix and stated that the appellant caught hold of hand of the prosecutrix and outraged her modesty. She denied the adverse suggestions of the defence in cross-examination. Another eyewitness to the incident PW-2 Narbad Bai has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. 11. As regards delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecutrix states that soon after the incident village panchayat was convened where the matter was discussed and it being late night, the report was lodged next day. Thus, the explanation offered appears to be plausible one and even otherwise, there is no such delay which can be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. 12. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of the prosecution and her mother, it stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the date of incident the appellant caught hold of hand of the prosecutrix, forced her for sexual favours and as such, outraged her modesty. Being so, his conviction under Section 354 of IPC awarded by learned trial Court cannot be faulted with. 6 13. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is reported to have been released from jail on 16.12.2017 after getting benefit of remission. As such, no order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. is required to be passed. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.04.07 16:47:10 +0530