1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 1165 of 2016 • Ashok S/o Jantru Nishad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Balodi Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 03/04/2025 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.45/2015 by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, wherein the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the conviction under Sections 452 and 354 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 2-2 years (each offence) and fine of Rs.1,000-1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1-1 month for each offence while setting aside the conviction and sentence under SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.04.08 12:37:32 +0530 2 Sections 354-D and 506-Part II of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that, on 20.05.2014, victim (PW-01) has lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) in Police Station Berla stating that on 11.05.2014 at about 10:30 PM when she was sleeping in her house alone, at that time the accused/applicant entered into her room, switched off the light and slept with her, and thereafter, kissed her and thus, tried to outrage her modesty. The applicant also threatened her to kill if she disclosed about the incident to anyone and, thereafter, left from the room. At the relevant point of time, her husband and her in- laws were out of the house. When her husband (PW-02) came to the house at about 11:00 PM, she informed about the incident to him. 3. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/2 and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. The accused/applicant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court of learned CJM, Bemetara in Criminal Case No. 567 of 2014 vide judgment dated 13.10.2015, convicted the applicant under Sections 452, 354, 354-D and 506-Part II of the IPC and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for two years (for each offence) and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- (for each offence), in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month (for each offence). However, the learned Appellate Court, acquitted the applicant of the charges under 3 Section 354-D and 506-Part II of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court of CJM 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 the alleged incident occurred on 11.05.2014 but the FIR (Ex.P/1) has been lodged on 20.05.2014 i.e. after a gap of nine days and in this regard, the victim has assigned the reason that there were no other family members present at the time of alleged incident, appears to be doubtful. Further, after the alleged incident at about 11:00 PM, the husband (PW-02) of the victim came to the house but no report was lodged regarding the alleged incident on the said date. This apart, it is stated in the FIR that on the date of incident, the victim was alone in her house, however, in her Court statement, she has stated that her grandfather was also present in the house on the date of incident, thus, there is contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim. He further submits that husband of the victim has also not supported the statement of the victim on some of the important points. Further, after the incident, the husband of the victim has also narrated about the alleged incident to Amola Patel, Sarpanch (PW-04) of the village who has also not supported the statement of the victim. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that applicant be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 4 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the Court of CJM as well as the 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 (PW-01) in her Court statement has specifically stated that on 11.05.2014 at about 10:30 PM, she was in her house along with her grandfather and she was sleeping alone in her room closing all the doors of the room. At that time, the accused/applicant entered into her room through roof (patawa), then switched off the light of the room and slept with her, kissed her and forcibly tried to outrage her modesty. She further stated that after the incident, she called her husband (PW-02) and when her husband came to the house, she narrated the incident to him, thereafter, her husband informed about the incident to the Sarpanch (PW-04) and other persons of the village. This witness was subjected to cross-examination in which she admitted that her room was closed from all sides and in the roof, there was a door. Though this witness in her statement has stated that at the time of incident, her grandfather was also present in the house, but her grandfather has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it, further, in the FIR (Ex.P/1), it is nowhere mentioned that on the date of incident, her grandfather was present in the house, thus, there appears to be contradictions and omissions in the statements of this witness. This apart, after the alleged incident, husband of the victim reached to the house at about 11:00 PM and despite knowing about the 5 incident from the victim, the FIR was not lodged immediately/soon after the incident, rather the FIR was lodged after a gap of nine days and in this regard, the reason assigned by the victim that there were no other family members present at the time of alleged incident, she could not lodged the report, appears to be doubtful as at about 11:00 PM, her husband had come to the house and further, in her statement, she has specifically stated that, her grandfather was also present in the house. She further admitted that if her husband had not told her to report the matter at police station then she would not have lodged it. Besides this, her husband has reported the matter on which she has put her signature. This witness has further admitted that on the date of incident, the applicant had come to the roof of her house to repair the loudspeaker mike which was kept in top of her house and at that time the applicant had not talked to her or saw her. From the above discussions, it appears that statement of this witness appears to be suspicious. 9. Husband (PW-02) of the victim in his statement has deposed that on the date of incident, he reached to the house at about 11:00 PM, thereafter, his wife (victim) informed about the incident to him that the applicant entered into the house from the roof (patawa), however, the victim in her statement has stated that her room was closed from all sides. 10.Amola Patel (PW-04) who is the Sarpanch of the village Balaudi, in her statement has not deposed anything about the alleged incident committed by the applicant which occurred on 11.05.2014 at night. This witness in her statement has only stated that the applicant has told her 6 about his past relationship with the victim. Thus, the statement of this witness was not duly corroborated with the statement of the victim. 11. J. P. Tripathi (PW-05), Assistant Sub-Inspector who lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) in his cross-examination, has admitted that FIR was lodged by the victim after nine days of the alleged incident. He further admitted that report of the incident should have lodged immediately and delay in filing the same raises doubt. Further, there is good and adequate means of transport facilities available from the village to the police station. 12.Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the statements of the victim, and the contents of FIR (Ex.P/1), the prosecution case appears to be suspicious and not reliable. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to discharge its duty by adducing cogent and clinching evidence to show the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question. 13.For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offences. 14.Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of CJM dated 13.10.2015 and that of Appellate Court dated 08.12.2016 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant 7 is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by extending him the benefit of doubt. 15.In the result, all the criminal revision is allowed. 16.Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash