1 2025:CGHC:42863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2022 Narayan Prasad Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Jay Lal Chandrakar Aged About 64 Years R/o Ufra, Police Station Amaleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Amaleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Rishi Sahu appears on behalf of Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Ms. Nupur Sonkar, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 25.08.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.08.26 10:50:53 +0530 2 Judge, Third Fast Track Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) Durg, District Durg in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO Act) No.191/2020 convicting the accused/Appellant under Sections 354 and 323 IPC as also under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Sections 354 IPC as also under Section 8 of the POCSO Act with usual default stipulation and to undergo RI for 4 months under Section 323 IPC, fine having been deposited. 2. Factual matrix leading to the conviction of the Appellant is that prosecutrix ‘C’ (PW-1), aged 16 years, who is in 11th grade, lodged FIR (Ex.P-1) on 16.11.2020 by making an averment inter alia that on 13.11.2020, at 5 a.m, she was on her morning walk along with her friend (not examined), sister (PW-4) and cousin (PW-7) and near burial place, as her companions headed away, some unknown persons came from her behind and caught hold of her waist and when she turned back, she identified the Appellant. It is alleged that while prosecutrix ‘C’ (PW-1) was trying to rescue herself, the Appellant pressed her breast and also torn her garment (kurti) upon which, trying to defend herself, she scratched his face and also raised hue and cry and upon hearing the same, as her companions reached there, he fled away by pressing her neck, clamping her mouth shut and threatening to kill her parents. Crime details form (Ex.P-2) was prepared. Kurti (Ex.P-3) of the 3 prosecutrix, which was torn by the Appellant was seized. Birth certificate of the prosecutrix (Ex.P-4) in which, her date of birth has been recorded as 12.07.2004 was seized. Patwari Kamlesh Kumar Verma (PW-5) has prepared spot map (Ex.P-5). Prosecutrix has been medically examined (Ex.P-7) by Dr. Krishna Dahriya (PW-6), who found that the abrasion over her chest was caused by a blunt and hard object 3-4 days prior to the examination, which is simple in nature. The Appellant was arrested on 20.11.2020 (Ex.P-17) by SHO Virendra Shrivastava (PW-11) and was sent for medical examination (Ex.P-15), where he was found to be absolutely fit with no injury. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused/Appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents (Ex.P-1 to P-19). Statement of the accused/Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which, he has stated that he has been falsely implicated and examined himself as defence witness (DW-1) and also taken a specific defence that earlier, his daughter-in-law has lodged FIR against the father (PW-2), mother (PW-3), aunt (PW-8) and other relatives of the prosecutrix against the incident occurred on 12.06.2020 and an offence has been registered against them 4 under Sections 294, 323 and 506/34 IPC at police station Amleshwar vide FIR No.60/2020 (Ex.D-3). The Appellant has also made a complaint (Ex.D-1) on the same day of the incident at police station Amleshwar against the prosecutrix and other girls stating that they yanked his towel and also assaulted him. 4. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court has, acquitted the Appellant under Section 506-II IPC and convicted him for the remaining offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, however, friend of the prosecutrix has not been examined and only the close relatives were examined by the prosecution. He further submits that there was a previous enmity between both the families as daughter-in-law of the Appellant has lodged FIR (Ex.D-3) against the prosecutrix’s father, mother and other relatives for which, notice of Lok Adalat, which has been held in the month of September, 2020, has also been served on her a couple of days prior to the incident and as the Appellant’s daughter-in-law was not ready for compromise, therefore, a cooked up and false story has been made against him. He further submits that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix and 5 other girls have implicated the Appellant, who is an old person, in a sexual molestation case and the trial Court found the statement of the prosecutrix as inconsistent, therefore, acquittal has been recorded with regard to charge under Section 506-II IPC. He lastly submits that considering all these infirmities, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the Appellant but has wrongly convicted him by the judgment impugned as mentioned above and prays to allow the Appeal. 6. Alternatively, learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment while submitting that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record. She further submits that as the earlier incident for which, plea of defence has been taken about the daughter-in-law of the Appellant, no pressure has been created by the prosecutrix or her family and in order to defend himself, he made a false complaint (Ex.D-1) at the police station for which, no cognizance has been taken and the Appellant has also not taken any further step. She lastly submits that this aspect has also been dealt with by the learned trial Judge and as such, the judgment impugned is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned with utmost circumspection. 6 8. Admittedly, prior to the present incident, daughter-in-law of the Appellant has made a complaint against the father (PW-2) and mother (PW-3) and other close relatives of the prosecutrix (PW-1) for which, FIR ( Ex.D-3) has also been registered at PS Amleshwar and notice to daughter-in-law of the Appellant for Lok Adalat dated 17.09.2020 was also served. The Appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, has taken a specific plea that as his daughter-in-law was not ready for compromise with the prosecutrix’s family, therefore, a false and cooked up case has been made against him. Even on the date of incident i.e. 13.11.2020, he has given a written complaint at police station Amleshwar (Ex.D-1) that prosecutrix and other girls have insulted him by snatching away his towel while he was returning from his nature’s call and also assaulted him by hand and fists. The Appellant has categorically deposed that 5-6 days prior to the date of incident, village Sarpanch namely Dal Singh Thakur (though listed by the prosecution as witness, but not examined) came to him along with the father (PW-2) of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and made a proposal for compromise with regard to the earlier report lodged by his daughter-in-law and in such backdrop, this evidence was required to be examined minutely. 7 9. Investigating Officer Virendra Shrivastava (PW-11), who is the SHO, without confronting the earlier FIR, which was lodged by daughter-in-law of the Appellant, has deposed that he was not aware of the same. This witness was also not having knowledge about the written complaint (Ex.D-1) filed by the Appellant on the date of incident at police station Amleshwar. 10. With regard to the alleged incident, prosecutrix ‘C’ (PW-1) has deposed that she has also caused an injury on the face of the Appellant by scratching with her nails. Though the Appellant was arrested on 20.11.2020 (Ex.P-17) and sent for medical examination (Ex.P-15), but no injury has been reported. The prosecution has examined only the close relatives of the prosecutrix i.e. father (PW-2), mother (PW-3), sister (PW-4), cousin (PW-7), aunt (PW-8) and one person who is residing near the place of incident (PW-9). Though the prosecution has recorded statements of the prosecutrix and other girls, who were sister (PW-4) and cousin of the prosecutrix (PW-7), but one of her friends was not examined though she has also accompanied the prosecutrix ‘C’ (PW-1) on the date of incident in the morning walk, which goes to show that there are material contradictions and omissions in the same. Even the trial Court has acquitted the Appellant of the charge under Section 506-II IPC by recording a specific finding that there exists inconsistency in the statement of the prosecutrix ‘C’ (PW-1) herself 8 whereas, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.D-1) (marked 2 times by the trial Court), she has made an allegation that the Appellant has been harassing her for the past six months, but in the FIR (Ex.P-1), there is no such averment and when this fact has been confronted, prosecutrix ‘C’ (PW-1) admits that prior to the present incident, the Appellant has neither harassed her nor misbehaved with her, but while recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.D-1), she admits the fact that she has deposed before the Magistrate that the accused was harassing her for the past six months but she has not lodged any report and also not disclosed the same to anyone. (PW-4), sister of the prosecutrix ‘C’ (PW-1) has been declared hostile by the prosecution but when the prosecution has made a suggestion at para-7, this witness has admitted that during the incident, the Appellant slept over the chest of the prosecutrix but the prosecutrix has not narrated any such incident. FIR (Ex.P-1) has also been lodged belatedly on 16.11.2020 i.e. about 3 days after the incident only after consultation with the family and in the backdrop that there were inimical terms between both the families as the daughter-in-law of the Appellant has earlier lodged FIR (Ex.D-3) which is also pending, this Court, on appreciation of evidence, is of the view that the trial Court has recorded a wrong finding of 9 conviction and the Appellant ought to have been extended benefit of doubt. 11. In view of above, the finding recorded by the trial Court is not justifiable, which is hereby set aside and the accused/Appellant is acquitted of the said charge. The Appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the Appellant shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the CrPC. 12. Consequently, the instant Appeal is Allowed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya