1 2025:CGHC:48670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 931 of 2021 1 - Tilak Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Vindhyawasini Ward, Vindhya Vihar Colony, Dhamtari, Police Station City Kotwali Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 22/09/2025 1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant against the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2018, whereby judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 1513/2017 is affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.12.2017, the victim PW-1 lodged the FIR Ex.P/1 to the police with the allegation that on 09.12.2017 when she was sleeping in her house along with her children, at about 01:00 a.m., the ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 14:07:28 +0530 2 applicant entered into the house and tried to pull her hand with the intention to outrage her modesty and when the victim protested he fled away from the place after jumping the wall. The incident was informed by the victim to her in-laws and also to her husband through mobile phone and then the report had been lodged. The FIR for the offence under Section 456 and 354 of IPC was registered against the applicant, he was arrested and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari. 3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has framed charge against the applicant for the offence under Section 456 and 354 of IPC. The applicant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the applicant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant for the offence under Section 456 and 354 of IPC and sentenced him for RI for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months for each of the offences. The applicant had challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence by filing the criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2018. After hearing the parties, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant vide judgment dated 24.11.2021 and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court is affirmed. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which was not 3 considered while passing the judgment of conviction and sentence by courts below and there is perversity in the judgment. The other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and there is material discrepancies in the evidence of the victim PW-1. The victim herself has admitted that with respect to the loot of ornaments from the house of the applicant, he lodged the report against her. There is no alarm raised by the victim at the time when the applicant allegedly trespassed her house and tried to outrage her modesty. The allegation of the victim is not corroborated with other witnesses to whom she immediately informed the incident even the childrens of the victim have not been examined and there is no evidence that they woke up at the time of alleged incident. The behaviour of the victim is against the normal conduct of a person and in view of the uncorroborated statement and evidence of the victim, conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained. The omissions, contradictions and infirmity of the witnesses have not been considered by the courts below, yet the applicant has been convicted for the alleged offence. In view of the evidence available on record. The applicant is entitled for benefit of doubt, he may be acquitted from the alleged offence. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State opposes and submitted that prompt report has been lodged by the victim, she immediately informed her in-laws and husband and also to her neighbours. She duly identified the applicant when he trespassed her house. The allegation of loot of ornaments from the wife of the applicant is subsequent to the present incident which does not affect the credibility of the present incident. There are sufficient evidence against the applicant in the case which makes him liable to be punished for the alleged offence. The learned trial Court as well as appellate Court concurrently held him guilty for the alleged offence of Section 354 and 456 of IPC, therefore, there is no ground in the present criminal revision filed by the applicant and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court as well as appellate Court. 9. With respect to the involvement of the applicant in the offence in question this Court is examine the legality of the proprietory of the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court. From the evidence of the victim PW-1 it transpires that on the date of incident she was sleeping in her house along with her childrens when the applicant entered into her house and caught her hand, he saw him in the torch light and when she asked him as to why he entered into her house, he fled away towards stairs. She went to the house of the applicant and asked him why he entered into her house and then the applicant replied that she may lodge the report. In cross- examination she admitted that she has not seen the applicant entering into her house. She did not know as to from which side he entered into her house. Her in-laws are not residing with her and they are residing in a separate house at the distance about 50ft. After the incident she disclosed it to her tenants PW-7. In cross-examination she admitted that the applicant is a married person and residing with his wife and when she had gone to the house of the applicant. He was in his own house. When they asked from the applicant as to why he entered into her house, he denied by the same. She also admitted that she committed marpeet with the applicant. She further admitted that with respect to loot of silver chain from the wife of the applicant, the applicant lodge the report against her at Police Station, Dhamtari. 10. PW-7, is the tenant of the victim to whom the victim informed the incident immediately. However, she has not supported the prosecution case and only stated that on the date of incident the victim informed her that the applicant had entered in house and when she woke up he fled away, she denied the other details of the incident. 11. PW-2, is the mother-in-law of the victim, she stated in her examination-in- chief that in the alleged night of the incident the victim informed her about the 5 incident that the applicant had entered her house with the intention to outrage her modesty thereafter they lodge the report. In examination-in-chief, she has not disclosed that they had gone to the house of the applicant on the same night and in para-2 of her cross-examination she clearly denied that they had gone to the house of the applicant on the date of incident itself. There is material contradiction in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7. 12. PW-1 have stated that on the date of incident she along with her in-laws and tenants had gone to the house of the applicant whereas her mother-in-law have denied that they had gone to the house of the applicant in the same night. 13. PW-7, have also not stated anything that on the date of incident they had gone to the house of the applicant. 14. PW-4, is the husband of the victim he stated in his evidence that at about 01:00 a.m. in the night on the date of incident his wife has informed him through telephone about the incident and then they lodge the report. He admitted in his cross-examination that the applicant has lodge the report against his wife at Police Station, Dhamtari with respect to loot of silver chain from the wife of the applicant. On the report made by the applicant they had gone to City Kotwali, Dhamtari. This witness have also not stated that they had gone to the house of the applicant to enquire about the fact as to why he entered into the house of the victim. 15. From the evidence of PW-1 there appears to be material contradictions with the evidence of other witnesses and when the evidence of victim is not corroborated by the evidence of other, the benefit goes to the applicant. There are contradictions in the evidence of the victim and corroboration of her evidence with the other evidence is required and she cannot be put into the witness of sterling quality had she been the sterling quality witness, there would be no requirement of corroboration. When there is no corroboration from other witnesses to whom she immediately informed the incident, i.e. 6 PW-7, there is no evidence of her children and there is no raising of alarm at the time when she saw the applicant inside her room, the evidence of the victim went of doubt. There is no evidence with respect to her in-laws and husband that they had gone to the house of the applicant on the same night, the attempt made by her that the applicant has lodged a report against her with respect to loot of a silver chain from his wife. All these evidence and facts of the case diluted the allegation of the victim made against the applicant for which the applicant is certainly entitled for benefit of doubt. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court committed an error by ignoring the material contradictions in the evidence and not giving benefit of doubt and therefore, the judgment passed by both the Courts below suffers from the irregularity and perversity. 17. Accordingly, by giving the benefit of doubt to the applicant his revision is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both Courts below are hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted from the alleged offence of Section 354 and 456 of IPC. 18. The applicant is reported to be in jail since 19.09.2025, in compliance of the order dated 06.08.2025, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 19. The record of the trial Court as well as appellate Court be sent back immediately to the Court concerned along with the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok