1 2025:CGHC:37368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 168 of 2016 Pyare Lal S/o Shyam Singh, aged about 45 years R/o Chandanbihri, Police Station: Mohla, District: Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Mohla, District: Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. This present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 01.02.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2015 arising out of the Judgment dated 11.05.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki, District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 353 of 2014 whereby, the appeal filed by the applicant was partly allowed by the learned Appellate Court while confirming the conviction of the applicant under SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.08.01 17:38:07 +0530 2 Section 457 and 354 of IPC, but reduced the sentence from SI for 2 years to SI for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for Section 457 of IPC, however, confirmed the sentence of SI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default SI for 10 days, awarded under Section 354 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.07.2014, when the victim had gone to sleep after having her dinner at 11:00 pm, at that time, the applicant entered her house and tried to outrage her modesty. When the victim saw the applicant, she raised alarm and thereafter the applicant fled away from the spot. 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. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki, District: Rajnandgaon (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 prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the applicant entered the house of prosecutrix with an intention to outrage her modesty. He further submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, were not 3 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 the author of the crime in question. He also submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the victim and other prosecution witnesses. 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. The victim/complainant (PW-1) deposed that on the date of the incident, i.e., 04.07.2014, at about 11:00 pm, she was sleeping in her room while her mother-in-law was sleeping in the Verandah. After some time, there was power cut at about 11:30 p.m and at that moment, the applicant-accused allegedly entered her room and tried to pull her saree upon which she raised an alarm and the accused lit the torch on her face. Thereafter, her mother-in-law came out of the verandah, screamed “Chor-Chor” and hearing this, the accused fled away from the spot. However, during cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that at the time of incident, the entire village was in darkness due to a power failure and that there was a storm at that time. She further admitted that she shouted about the assailant, but did not 4 mention the name of the present applicant. 9. PW-2 Vimla Bai, the mother-in-law of the victim, stated that she was sleeping in the Verandah at the time of the incident. She deposed that the victim called her by name, shouting that someone had entered the house. Upon reaching the spot, she also shouted “Chor-Chor” and hearing this the accused fled away from there. However, she clarified that the victim did not identify the applicant-accused by name. PW-2 further stated that the victim did not know the name of the applicant- accused but recognized him by face. During cross-examination, she admitted that on the date of the incident there was no electricity in the village and it was raining heavily. She also stated that she named the applicant-accused based on guesswork. 10. PW-3 Amrika, has stated that the at the time of incident i.e. 11:00 pm, the applicant-accused was sitting near the drain and was not wearing his clothes and after seeing him, she shouted ‘Chor-Chor’ and thereafter the villagers have caught the applicant-accused and took him to Mohla Thana. In her cross-examination, this witness has also admitted that at the time of incident, there was no light in the village and was raining heavily. She further admitted that the victim is her neighbour and she has not heard any voice of the villagers and was not present at the time when the applicant was taken to the village and at the subsequent village meeting. She further admitted that a meeting was convened in the village and she has not participated in the meeting and what was the outcome of the meeting, she does not know. 11. PW-4 Milan, who is the husband of the victim, has stated that he was 5 sleeping in another house. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he does not know how the incident happened, however, this witness has also admitted that there was storm with heavy rain and there was no electricity in the village. 12. PW-6 Rambharos, who was the barber of the village has stated that he does not know anything about the incident and who has entered the house of the victim. 13. From perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that victim (PW-1) and her mother in law Vimla Bai (PW-2) did not identify the applicant, no identification parade was also conducted by the prosecution and 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, the torch light which is alleged to have been shown by the applicant on the face of the victim at the time of incident, is inherently contradictory if the victim was being focused by a torchlight, it is highly improbable that she could identify the assailant and that the victim/complainant has also not taken the name of the applicant-accused in her cross-examination. Further the investigating officer of this case has not 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 unjustified in convicting and sentencing 6 the applicant for the aforesaid offence. 14. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 11.05.2015 and that of Appellate Court dated 01.02.2016 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 457 and 354 of IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt. 15. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh