1 2025:CGHC:46733 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2022 Yashwant Dewangan, S/o Manthir Dewangan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Atal Awaas, Quarter No. 191 Pendri, P.S. Lalbagh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Lalbagh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant :Shri Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Ms. Nupur Sonkar, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 12.09.2025 1. This Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.09.13 12:37:03 +0530 2 and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’) Rajnandgaon in Special Case No.36/2020 whereby, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months under Section 323 IPC and to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation under Section 354 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Summed up facts of the case of the prosecution are that victim ‘P’ (PW-1) is a married lady, aged about 29 years and the accused/Appellant was also residing in her locality. It has been alleged that on 01.08.2020 at about 8.30 a.m, when the accused/Appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix ‘P’ (PW-1) and started molesting her, her husband ‘L’ (PW-2) reprimanded him upon which, the Appellant got annoyed and assaulted on his head by using a sickle lying therein and also abused in filthy language. They have called Police by dialing 112 and the victim has lodged written complaint (Ex.P-1) at PS Lalbagh. On the said information, FIR (Ex.P-9) was registered. Crime details form (Ex.P-2) was prepared by Investigating Officer ASI Rajeshwar Singh Thakur (PW-4) and spot map (Ex.P-3) was prepared by Patwari. Caste certificate of the victim was seized (Ex.P-4), photo copy of which has been marked as Article-’A’. The sickle which has been used for assaulting the husband of the victim 3 was seized (Ex.P-5). Injured husband ‘L’ (PW-2) was medically examined (Ex.P-7’A’) by Dr. Kanchan Banchod (PW-6), who found a lacerated wound measuring 1x1 cm bone deep over the left parietal region of the head having caused with a hard and blunt object along with swelling measuring 1x1 cm. The sickle which was used for committing the said crime has also been examined (Ex.P-8’A’) by her and she opined that the said weapon might have possibly caused the injury to the husband of the victim. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. During trial, the Appellant has abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents (Ex.P-1 to P-9). In the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C, the Appellant has denied the charges levelled against him and did not adduce any defence witness. 4. After evaluation of evidence, the trial Court has, by way of the impugned judgment, acquitted the Appellant under Sections 452 IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 and convicted him for the offence under Sections 323 and 354 IPC as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this Appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no intention on the part of the Appellant for sexually molesting victim 4 ‘P’ (PW-1) and he did not commit any such crime and there are serious inconsistencies in the statement of the victim and her husband. He further submits that a trivial dispute has been aggravated by the victim and her husband as on the date of incident, the accused/Appellant was called for electrical repair work at the house of the victim but as adequate payment was not made to him for the same, therefore, a dispute arose with the husband of the victim and as her husband was a Government employee, therefore, in order to save themselves, a false FIR has been lodged against him. Alternatively, he submits that the accused/Appellant may be acquitted of the charge under Section 354 IPC as he has already suffered jail sentence from 05.10.2020 to 08.10.2020 and post conviction from 21.12.2021 to 31.12.2021, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him under Section 323 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him as no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submits that the judgment impugned is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, perused the material available on record as also gone through the judgment under challenge carefully. 5 8. Perusal of the statement of the victim ‘P’ (PW-1) shows that on the date of incident, the accused/Appellant has entered into her house and started molesting her by holding her hand and saree as also by making derogatory remarks. When ‘L’ (PW-2)-husband of the victim tried to resist him, the Appellant has assaulted on his head by using a sickle which was witnessed by one Rajendra Lahre (not examined). 9. On minute examination of the evidence of ‘L’ (PW-2)-husband of the victim (PW-1), it is explicit that his version of the story is entirely differently from that of his wife. In his statement, he did not admit to having witnessed the incident. He stated that at the time of the incident, he was on the terrace of his house. When he heard his wife screaming, he came downstairs, and the Appellant, who was leaving, told him that he had come to fetch some thread. He further stated that when he asked the accused/Appellant as to why he had not asked him to fetch the thread instead, the Appellant attacked him with a sickle lying nearby, causing an injury to his head. He further stated that his wife has informed him that the Appellant molested her having entered into the house and also threatened him while causing injury with the sickle. 10. On perusal of the statements of the Victim ‘P’ (PW-1) and her husband ‘L’ (PW-2), it is evident that they have denied the suggestion that on the date of the incident, the Appellant had come 6 to their house for electrical repair work. The victim has also denied the fact that the Appellant made any demand for labor charges, which allegedly led to a dispute with her husband. The victim also did not mention in her written complaint (Ex.P-1) that on the date of the incident, the accused/Appellant came to her house to demand thread, as he was engaged in the tailoring business and nothing was mentioned therein as to in what manner, the accused/Appellant has molested her. Looking at the aforesaid statements of the victim and her husband, it appears that there are inconsistencies regarding the sexual molestation. The wife claims that her husband witnessed the incident, yet one of the independent witnesses, namely Rajendra Lahre, for athe reasons best known to the prosecution, has not been examined. The non- examination of this independent witness is also detrimental to the prosecution’s case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 354 IPC against the accused/Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 11. As regards the offence under Section 323 IPC, there is a clear evidence of the husband of the victim that at the time of dispute, the Appellant was the person who was carrying the sickle, which was used to cause injury on his head and this fact has also been corroborated by Dr. Kanchan Banchod (PW-6), who proved her report (Ex.P-7’A’) and the query report (Ex.P-8) and opined that 7 the injury could have been possibly caused by such a nature of weapon i.e. sickle, which has been examined by her. Victim ‘P’ (PW-1) also corroborated the fact that the accused/Appellant was the person who caused the said injury. 12. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that based on the evidence available on record, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 323 IPC is well merited and accordingly, the same is hereby affirmed. Considering the fact that the accused/Appellant is 40 years old and engaged in the tailoring business and also considering the fact that the victim ‘P’ (PW-1) categorically admits the fact that during bail, she has filed an application for compounding the offence and further considering that the accused/Appellant has already suffered jail sentence from 05.10.2020 to 10.10.2020 and post conviction from 21.12.2021 to 31.12.2021, as no purpose would be served if he is again sent to jail, therefore, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him under Section 323 IPC. The conviction and sentence recorded under Section 354 IPC are hereby set aside. 13. Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The Appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the Appellant shall 8 remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya