1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 248 of 2016 • Raj Dahariya, S/o - Abheyram Dahariya, aged about 22 Years, R/o Village Kanakot, P.S. Palari, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.83/2015, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 19.10.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.742/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda-Bazar, C.G, convicting the applicant under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.03.12 11:52:03 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.07.2014 at about 5:30 pm, complainant/victim along with her sister-in-law/PW-2 had gone to attend nature's call near pond and while they were returning, at that time, present applicant along with two other persons, with an intention to outrage her modesty, stopped her and caught hold of her right hand and when she started shouting and tried to assault him with slipper, he fled away from there. After that, her sister-in-law/PW-2 and village people caught the two persons present along with the applicant and on being asked, they told the name of applicant as Raj Dehariya. Thereafter, on the report of victim, FIR (Ex.P-1) has been registered against the applicant. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused / applicant was arrested vide Ex.P-3. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda-Bazar, C.G. The accused / applicant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court of learned JMFC and the Appellate Court, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. He further submits that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to suggest that applicant is 3 the author of the crime in question. He also submits that PW-2 sister- in-law of the victim has also not supported the prosecution case and there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the victim and other prosecution witnesses. He also submits no test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution to identify the accused. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Victim/complainant (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, she along with her sister-in-law/PW-2 had gone to attend nature's call near pond and while they were returning, at that time, present applicant along with other two persons, stopped her and caught hold of her right hand and when she started shouting and tried to assault him with slipper, he fled away from there. After that, her sister-in-law/PW-2 and village people caught the two persons who were present with the applicant and on being asked, they told the name of applicant as Raj Dahariya. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and in cross-examination, she admitted that before the incident, she did not know the applicant. She further admitted that the police did not conduct any test identification parade through her. 4 Further, PW-2 sister-in-law of the victim has stated that she does not recognize the applicant and for the first time, she saw the applicant in Court. She has also that as she did not see the applicant properly, therefore, she could not recognize the face of the applicant. Furthermore, PW-3 husband of the victim also admitted in his cross- examination that he did not find any injury over the person of the victim nor her bangles were broken. Besides above, PW-4 Hemant Kumar also admitted that he does not know anything about the incident and only on the basis of information received from village people, he told about the incident. Moreover, PW-6 Lekhram also admitted that he was at his home at the time of incident. Apart from this, PW-6 Devnath Janghel, ASI, also admitted in his cross- examination that at the time of incident, he only recorded the statement of PW-2 sister-in-law of victim. He further admitted that the persons, namely Narottam Kumar and Sukhdev Banjare, have disclosed the name of the applicant as Raj Dehariya to victim. He also admitted that he has not conducted any test identification parade through victim nor sent her for medial examination. 9. From perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of victim/complainant and other prosecution witnesses and their evidence do not corroborate with each other. Apart from this, victim and PW-6 Devnath Janghel, ASI have admitted that no test identification parade was conducted to identify the accused. Moreover, PW-6 Devnath Janghel, ASI, also admitted that Narottam Kumar and Sukhdev Banjare have disclosed the name of the applicant as Raj Dehariya to victim, but they have not 5 been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Further, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the applicant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court were totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. 10. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 19.10.2015 and that of Appellate Court dated 31.12.2015 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 354 of IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt. 11. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Akhilesh