1 (CRA No.1948 of 2023) 2025:CGHC:13082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1948 of 2023 (Ari sing out of judgment dated 28.08.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.20/2019 by the Additional Session Judge F.T.C. , South Bastar, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh . ) • Suresh Mandavi S/o Shri Hurra Mandavi Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Phulbagadi, Khaspara, Polise Station Phulbagadi, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Keralapal, District Sukma (C.G.) … Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board (19.03.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2023, passed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 (CRA No.1948 of 2023) the learned Additional Sessionss Judge (FTC) South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G) in Sessions Trial No.20/2019, by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence Under Section 354B of Indian Penal Code. : Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs.500/-. Under Section 506 (Part II) of Indian Penal Code. : Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year’s additional rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentence to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11th October, 2019 at about 08:00 P.M., near Sanjeet Dhaba, Police Station Karelapal, District, the appellant used criminal force on the victim (PW-04) with intention to disrobe her and also threatened her to kill, if she discloses the fact about the said incident to her brother, thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Madkam Joga (PW-01), brother of the victim, made 3 (CRA No.1948 of 2023) a written complaint against the appellant vide Ex.P/1, pursuant to which FIR was lodged vide Ex.P/2. Crime detail form and nazari naksha were prepared vide Ex.P/5 and P/10, respectively. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/6) knife was seized vide P/8. 3. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offences, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents and the appellant-accused in support of their defence not examined any witness but has exhibited 2 documents. 5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the 4 (CRA No.1948 of 2023) appellant for the aforesaid offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 354B and 506 Part II of I.P.C. and also looking to the contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant is liable to be acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. In alternative, she would further submit that, if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the appellant be sentenced to the period already undergone by him for the offences in question as the present appellant is in custody for more than 3 years and, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed in full or part. 7. Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He would further submit that the manner in which the offences have 5 (CRA No.1948 of 2023) been committed, as the appellant used criminal force upon the victim with intention to disrobe her and also threatened her to kill if she discloses the fact with regard to incident, he is not entitled for any leniency and further, it is not a fit case where the appellant be sentenced for the period already undergone by him and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. To base the conviction of the appellant, the trial Court has relied upon the statements of the victim (PW-4) and victim’s brother (PW-1). The victim in her statement before the Court has clearly stated that the appellant told her that her brother (PW-1) had gone to village Doranpal for some work and could not come in the night, therefore, the appellant had taken her in his house with his brother, namely, Raju. Thereafter, the appellant came to the victim and tried to disrobe her then she started crying and went to house of lady where she and her brother Raju stayed in the night and on the next morning, when her brother (PW-01) came there they reported the 6 (CRA No.1948 of 2023) matter to the police. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of the victim’s brother (PW-01) and the victim (PW-04); the written report (Ex.P/1), lodged by PW-01 pursuant to which First Information Report was lodged vide Ex.P/2, in which appellant has clearly been implicated in the crime in question, the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant for offence under Section 354B of the IPC. As such, on the basis of the aforesaid pieces of evidence available on record, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354B of the I.P.C. is well merited. 10. So far as the conviction under Section 506 Part II is concerned, it would be appropriate to notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Jaur @ Soni vs. State of Punjab 1 , in which their Lordships have held in paragraph No.26, which is reproduced below for reference; “26. Proving the intention of the appellant to cause alarm or compel doing/abstaining from some act, and not mere utterances of words, is a prerequisite of successful conviction under Section 506 of IPC. The trial Court has 1 (2020) 8 SCC 811 7 (CRA No.1948 of 2023) undertaken no such separate analysis or recorded any finding on this count, thus calling into question the conviction for criminal intimidation. Further, the nature of this charge is such that it is a derivative of the main charge of “procuration of minor girls”. Given the facts of this case where the common testimony of PW 1 on both charges has been doubted, it would be unwise to rely upon it as the sole piece of evidence to convict the appellant for criminal intimidation without any other corroboration.” 11. Coming to the facts of the case, in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships, it is quite vivid that the victim appeared to be tutored witness as in the cross examination she has not supported the case of the prosecution to the extent of offence under Section 506 Part II of the IPC, as such, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 506 Part II of the IPC is not well merited. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 354B of the IPC is well merited. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that no special reasons has been awarded by the trial Court to award the maximum sentence 8 (CRA No.1948 of 2023) for 5 years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant as the minimum sentence is 3 years rigorous imprisonment. As such, I award 3 years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant for offence under Section 354B of the IPC and the fine amount shall remain intact. Further, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 506 of the IPC are not well merited as the prosecution has not able to bring home the offence. Accordingly, the appellant has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 506 Part II of IPC. 13. Consequently, the appellant be released forthwith from jail as he has already completed his jail sentence i.e. 3 years, as he is in jail from 13.10.2019 to 22.09.2020 and since 27.01.2023 to till date and he be released from jail if his detention is not required in any other offence. 14. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any. A copy of the 9 (CRA No.1948 of 2023) judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Saxena