1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 125 of 2016 Order Reserved on 28.07.2025 Order Delivered on 08.08.2025 1. Prahlad Patel, S/o Dileshwar Patel, aged about 23 Years, 2. Damrudhar Patel, S/o Dileshwar Patel, aged about 27 Years, Both are R/o Village - Khorsiya, Police Station Chandrapur, Tahsil - Dabhra, District - Janjgir – Champa, Chhattisgarh ...Applicants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Station - Chandrapur, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate. For Complainant : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Order 1. The present applicants have preferred this criminal revisions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.104/2015, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 04.05.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.61/2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.08.08 18:15:44 +0530 2 C.G, convicting the applicants under Section 354 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant/victim lodged an oral report at Police Station Chandrapur on 21.02.2013 stating therein that on the same day, at about 6:30 pm at village Khursiya, while she was going to attend Saraswati Pooja, at that time, present applicants, with an intention to outrage her modesty, met her, caught hold of her hands and pulled her clothes. When her brother/PW-2 asked them about the incident, then both the applicants assaulted him and the victim. On the said report of victim, FIR (Ex.P-1) has been registered against the applicants. During investigation, spot map has been prepared vide Ex.P-2, victim and her brother have been sent for medical examination where PW-5 Dr. Rajani Patel examined them and gave her MLC reports vide Exs.P-3 & P-4 respectively. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and accused persons / applicants was arrested vide Exs.P-5 & P-6. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicants before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. The accused persons / applicants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court of learned JMFC, on the basis of compromise between the parties, acquitted the applicants of the charge under Sections 341 & 323/34 of IPC, while convicting and sentencing them as mentioned in para 1 of this order. The said judgment of JMFC was 3 challenged by the applicants and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the applicants as passed by the JMFC. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit 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 applicants for the aforesaid offence. He would further submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the victim and other prosecution witnesses. He would also there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to suggest that applicants are the author of the crime in question. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicants that applicants be acquitted of the charge leveled against them. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned judgments, wold submit that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants 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, at about 6:30 pm, she was going to perform Saraswati Pooja, at that time, near a bore-well, accused persons/applicants stopped her and told her that they loved her and liked her, however, in 4 the FIR (Ex.P-1), these facts/words are not specifically mentioned. She has further stated that with an intention to outrage her modesty, present applicants misbehaved with her and when her brother/PW-2 intervened in the matter, then both the applicants committed marpeet with him and victim by hands and fists and also torn the salwar of the victim, but in FIR (Ex.P-1), victim did not state that the applicants had torn her Salwar. In cross-examination, she denied that while she was going to perform Pooja, both the applicants have misbehaved with her, but in FIR (Ex.P-1), she has stated the incident occurred while she was going to perform Saraswati Pooja. She has also admitted that prior to incident, she quarreled with her brother. She has also denied that on account of their quarrel, they broke the musical instruments of the accused persons, however, PW-2 brother of the victim, has stated that at the time of incident, one Veer Patel and DW-1 Ghurva Ram intervened in the matter and in his statement, DW-1 Ghurva Ram has stated that there was quarrel between the complainant and her brother/PW-2 and due to said quarrel, the complainant/PW-1 came to the Pandaal and abused the children sitting there and at that time, her brother/PW-2 also came over there and vandalized the Pandaal. He has also stated that both the victim and her brother/PW-2 had broken the musical instruments of applicants kept there and ran away. He has further stated that a meeting was convened and in the meeting, the applicants informed about the breaking of musical instruments by the victim and her brother/PW-2 and demanded compensation for the damaged goods, because of which, scuffle took place between PW-2 brother of the victim and the applicants. 9. PW-2 brother of the victim has stated in his deposition that he could not 5 see his sister/victim from where he was standing. It is also admitted by him that he did not see the accused persons misbehaving with her sister/victim. He has also admitted that at the time of incident, one Veer Patel and DW-1 Ghurva Ram had intervened in the matter, but prosecution has not examined Ghurva Ram from its side for the reasons best known to it, whereas he (DW-1) has been examined by the defence side. Moreover, PW-3 father of the victim has stated that he was not present at the time of incident. 10. That apart, PW-4 mother of the victim has stated that while she was cooking food, she heard the voice of victim and after that, she came out of the house and saw the incident, but in the FIR (Ex.P-1), these contents are missing and that PW-1 victim and PW-2 brother of the victim have also not stated that her mother/PW-4 was present at the spot. In the FIR (Ex.P-1), victim has stated that she had informed about the incident to her mother/PW-4, but PW-4 in her cross-examination admitted that no one had informed her about the incident. 11. Thus, perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of victim/complainant, her brother/PW-2 and other prosecution witnesses and their evidence do not corroborate with each other and the contents of FIR (Ex.P-1) to unfold the incident. That apart, one Veer Patel and DW-1 Ghurva Ram, who are stated to have intervened in the matter, have also not been examined by the prosecution on its behalf to prove the factum of the incident and that alleged torn Salwar of victim has also not been seized by the prosecution. Besides above, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show the complicity of the applicants in the crime in 6 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 applicants are 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 applicants for the aforesaid offence. 12. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 04.05.2015 and that of Appellate Court dated 03.02.2016 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicants are acquitted of the charge under Section 354 read with 34 of IPC by extending them the benefit of doubt. 13. It is reported that the applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Akhilesh/Anjani