1 2025:CGHC:46555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 33 of 2022 Sourabh Gendle S/o Manoj Gendle Aged About 23 Years R/o Talapara Near House Of Chhote Parshad, P.S. Civil Lines Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Civil Line District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. For Appellant : Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsyan and Shri Vikash Patel, Advocates. For State/Respondent : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 11.09.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.130/2018, whereby the appellant was held guilty for the offences under Section 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter “the Act, 2012”) and under Section 354C of IPC and was sentenced for the graver offence AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.12 15:33:17 +0530 2 under Section 354C of IPC to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that mother of the victim girl ‘NB’ (PW-1) lodged an FIR (Ex.P/1) with the police station Civil Lines Bilaspur on 24.04.2018, at about 11:15 pm stating that on the said date, at about 10:30 pm, when her minor daughter ‘AK’ (PW-4), aged about 12 years, had gone to the public toilet (सुलभ शौचालय) and was using the lavatory, the appellant/accused was peeping into the room and when the victim objected for the same, the appellant abused her in filthy language. Victim after reaching the home, narrated the said incident to her mother (PW-1). Thereafter, mother of the victim along with her elder daughter ‘M’ (PW-2) went to the public toilet and asked the appellant about such behaviour. The appellant got annoyed and also abused them in filthy language and he pulled the hairs of elder daughter ‘M’ (PW-2) and also extended threat to them. 3. Statement of the victim (PW-4) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P/4. School Admission Register (Article - A) was seized from the Principal namely Nisha Kshatriye (PW-6) vide Seizure memo (Ex.P/5), in which, date of birth of the victim was recorded as 10.08.2006. 4. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 5. During trial, appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/11 and Article A, copy 3 of School Admission Certificate. 7. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant pleaded false implication and took a defence that victim is daughter of his maternal uncle and when his elder brother was quarreling, the victim recorded a video, for which, the appellant scolded her and victim committed maar- peet and lodged false FIR against him. No defence evidence has been adduced. 8. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted the appellant under Section 11/12 of the Act, 2012 and under Section 354C of IPC and sentenced him for the graver offence under Section 354C of IPC as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this Appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are serious contradictions and variations in the testimony of the victim, her mother as also her elder sister. He submits that when the statement of the witnesses are full of contradictions then the said witnesses do not inspire confidence and not to be fully acted upon, and as such, could not be relied as they are not reliable witness. The trial Court ignored such aspects and convicted the appellant which is absolutely unjustified, therefore, this Appeal may be allowed. 10.On the contrary, counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the same is well merited and does not call for any interference. 11.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12.In the FIR (Ex.P/1), time of the incident has been mentioned as 10:30 pm on 24.04.2018 and accordingly, charge has been framed against the 4 appellant mentioning the said time of incident. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P/2, victim has stated regarding time of the incident to be in the evening at about 6-7 pm and she has disclosed exactly the same time of incident while recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. Victim (PW-4), in the statement, deposed that in the evening, when she went to the public toilet, the appellant was peeping into the room and upon such misbehavior of the appellant, she weepingly returned the home and narrated the incident to her elder sister ‘M’ (PW-2). Thereafter, her elder sister asked the appellant about such conduct, then the appellant started maar-peet with the victim and her elder sister and pressed the breasts of her elder sister then she informed about the incident to her Mother (PW-1). 13.Elder sister of the victim ‘M’ (PW-2) has not deposed that any such incident happened with her and the appellant, in any manner, pressed her breasts while committing the incident. She deposed that she had also accompanied her younger sister/victim (PW-4) to the public toilet. Whereas, Victim (PW-4) has denied the said fact and in the cross- examination, stated that she went to the public toilet alone. 14.Mother of the victim (PW-1) deposed that when she came to know about the incident, she along with her elder daughter (PW-2) went to the public toilet and asked the appellant about such misbehavior, then the appellant started abusing in filthy language and committed maar-peet with her elder daughter (PW-2). Thereafter, this witness lodged an FIR (Ex.P/1) with the police station Civil Lines Bilaspur. 15.From scanning of aforesaid evidence, it is explicit that statements of the victim, her elder sister and her mother are full of contradictions and they 5 have changed their versions according to their convenience and such a nature of testimony cannot be fully relied upon as it does not inspire complete confidence and therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on such witnesses. 16.In the matter of Nirmal Premkumar vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police {AIR ONLINE 2024 SC 382}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while recording acquittal considered the case to be full of inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative which render the prosecution’s story as doubtful and materially observed at Paras 21 and 22, which reads as under: “21. Taking a close look at the overall picture, the inference which could reasonably be drawn is that the prosecution's case has been marked by lacklustre efforts, revealing a poorly executed endeavour that gives rise to substantial doubts regarding the integrity of the case. The material contradictions apparent in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, including the victim, significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution version. These inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, render it considerably doubtful. On the face of such evident discrepancies, recording conviction becomes untenable, as the foundation of the case crumbles under the weight of doubt. While we might have chosen to overlook other contradictions and solely relied on the victim's account, considering her as a 'sterling witness', her version appears muddled and prevaricated, much less coherent. It is precisely these inconsistencies and contradictions, which are material, that compel us to reject the case set up by the prosecution before the Special Court with which the High Court concurred adopting a flawed approach. 22. Conviction undoubtedly can be recorded on the sole evidence of a victim of crime; however, it must undergo a strict scrutiny through the well- settled legal principles as established by this Court in a catena of decisions. While the actions attributed to A-1, as sought to be demonstrated by the 6 prosecution, may fall within the purview of 'sexual harassment' under section 11 of the POCSO Act, the evidence in this case has been marred by inadequacies from the outset, evident in contradictions within statements and testimonies. The evidence led leaves reasonable suspicion as to whether A-1 was actually involved in any criminal act.” 17.From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the serious infirmities in the statement of the witnesses as also the serious nature of material contradictions found in the statement of the victim herself, this Court is of the considered opinion that conviction recorded by the trial Court is absolutely unjustified and the appellant is entitled for acquittal by giving him benefit of doubt. 18. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction imposed on the appellant under Section 11/12 of the Act, 2012 and conviction as well as sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 354C of IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. 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. 19. Let a copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash