1 2025:CGHC:41471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 113 of 2007 Sita Ram, S/o Shri Rampayare, aged about 23 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o. Village- Badal, P.S.- Narharpur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P. S.- Narharpur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) --- Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Rewa Shankar Patel, Advocate. For State : Mr. Afroz Khan, PL _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 18.08.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 16.01.2007 passed by learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), North Bastar Kanker, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 164/2006, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 354 of IPC R.I. for 1 year Under Section 294 of IPC R.I. for 2 months (Both sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.2005 at about 2:30 pm, a report lodged by the complainant (PW-2), who is the father of the prosecutrix to the fact that on the night of date of incident 12.07.2005, after having Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 the dinner, he was laying on the bed. At that time, his elder daughter (prosecutrix) was teaching to her brother and sister, then at about 9:00 pm, the accused came to his house and stated to her daughter (prosecutrix) that her friend is calling, but she denied to go and also the complainant denied her to go and said to go in the morning. Despite not getting approval to go outside, his daughter in the name of her friend went with the accused/appellant, but hearing the loud screams of his daughter (prosecutrix) from a distance, he went towards the road side along with his wife and asked to his daughter, what happened with you? Then she stated that the accused with an intent to outrage her modesty caught hold her hand and arms and pulled towards him, the accused was also standing there at a distance. The complainant asked to the accused have you molested the girl? Thereby he warned the appellant by saying that do not repeat this mistake, otherwise you will get beaten up. On being so warned, the appellant/accused got infuriated and by using filthy language he asked as to what he did with your daughter and threatened him to kill and when the villagers of village namely Kishnu Patel, Puroshutam Pandey, Niraram Yadav intervened to rescue the quarrel, he fled from the spot. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested before the witnesses after lodging the FIR by the complainant (PW-2). Statement of the complainant as well as prosecutrix were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 354, 294, 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 3 Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant/accused has abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him & pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, one witness adduced by the appellant in his defence. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is contrary to the facts, evidence and law. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the witnesses have given contradictory statements during the course of their depositions. Learned trial Court has erred by not considering the statements of all witnesses also ignoring the fact that there is no eye-witness to the said incident. Learned trial Court has failed to consider this fact that there is subsisting enmity between the appellant and complainant family. Lastly, he submits that the appellant has already been released from the jail after granting remission. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant accordingly. However, no dispute is made regarding the fact that the 4 appellant has been released from the jail and in this regard he has filed a letter dated 11.08.2025 of Assistant Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) wherein it has been mentioned that the appellant has been released on 20.01.2018 from the jail after granting remission . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is evident from record of learned learned trial Court that it framed charges for offence punishable under Section 354, 294, 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 354 and 294 of IPC by acquitting of the offence under Section 506-II of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST Act and sentenced him as prescribed in inaugural para of this judgment. 9. In her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that on the date of incident, the accused came to his house and stated to her that her friend is calling, then she went along with the accused/appellant, after some time she raised alarm for help as the accused/appellant with an intent to outrage her modesty caught hold her hand, groped her breast. Upon hearing the loud screams, her parents came to the spot and appellant was also standing there at a distance. Her father/complainant asked to the accused have you done anything with his daughter? To which the appellant replied that he did nothing. Despite that he warned the appellant by saying that do not repeat this mistake ever again. Thereafter we returned to our home and at that 5 time the accused/appellant followed us along the way and abused her father by using filthy language by saying that what did he do with your daughter. Upon hearing such filthy language, the villagers of village namely Kishnu Patel, Puroshutam Pandey, Niraram Yadav came to the spot. 10. PW-2, who is the father of the prosecutrix supported the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and stated that when he heard voice of her daughter for help, being frightened by listening to his daughter’s voice, he sprinted along with her wife and asked to her daughter what happened with her, on which she stated that the accused/appellant with intent to outrage her modesty, the appellant caught hold her hand and the appellant was also standing there, thereby he warned the appellant by saying that do not repeat this mistake, otherwise you will get beaten. On the next day, he convened the village meeting, where the appellant was present and he had accepted his mistake. 11. DW-1 Ramcharan stated that in the village meeting, the prosecutrix did not tell about the incident, but it is evident from the statement of the defence witness that some village meeting was convened by father of the prosecutrix (PW-2). 12. It is quite evident from the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and father of the prosecutrix (PW-2) that they categorically stated against the appellant and they remained firm in their cross-examinations and the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 294 of IPC by acquitting of offence under Section 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of SC and ST Act. Thus, findings recorded by the learned trial Court are well merited and based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court 6 does not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 13. As regards the sentence, looking to the act of the appellant, learned trial Court rightly awarded the sentence for offence under Section 354 of IPC- R.I. for 1 year and Section 294 of IPC- R. I. for 02 months. 14. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. As the accused/appellant is reported to has been released from jail on 20.01.2018 after granting remission, there is no need to pass any order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL