1 CRA No. 439 of 2016 2025:CGHC:35529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 439 of 2016 Vivek Singh S/o P.S. Rajput Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Gondgiri, Thana Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh Address Of Appellant Mentioned In Certified Copy Of Judgement Whereas As Correct Address Is R/o Ward No. 16, Parshuram Ward, Village Singhouri, City Kotwali Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 23/2015 by the learned upper Sessions Judge, Bemetara C.G. whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 354 (C) of the IPC R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26 12:34:26 +0530 2 CRA No. 439 of 2016 undergo RI for 1 month. U/s 354 (d) of I.P.C. R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for one month U/S 12 & 14 (10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 R.I. for 1-1 year and fine of Rs. 500-500/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1-1 month U/s 67 of I.T Act R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 3 months. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that a report was lodged on 24.09.2014 that both appellant and prosecutrix are neighbour and since last four years, the appellant used to follow her and took porn photograph of the prosecutrix in his mobile phone and circulate to others. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 11.03.2016 convicted 3 CRA No. 439 of 2016 and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He would submit that there is no evidence that obscene images of the prosecutrix was taken and forwarded by the present appellant. He also submits that there is no evidence to prove that the seized mobile phone belongs to the appellant and therefore prays that the present appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The question for consideration is whether the accused took pictures of the accused in a situation of privacy where she was not likely to be seen by anyone else and circulated them in electronic media to another person’s mobile phone? 10. PW-1 namely Mamta Mishra stated in her examination in chief that she knew the prosecutrix and on 22.09.2014, she saw the nude picture of her in the mobile phone of her husband and told the mother of the prosecutrix and thereafter they lodged the 4 CRA No. 439 of 2016 report. He further stated that the mobile phone was seized. Further in her cross examination she has stated that she don’t use mobile phone and does not have the knowledge that if something is send to the mobile phone, the sender is known. She further stated that she and her husband are not educated and do not know who sent the pictures. She also stated that she don’t know in whose name the seized mobile phone is and in whose name the SIM card was issued. She however has stated that the mobile phone is used by her husband. 11. PW-3 namely Surendra Pandey stated in his examination in chief that he knew the appellant and the father of the appellant is his friend. He further stated that he has seen the appellant harassing the prosecutrix at Bemetara and he used to follow her around. He further stated that but he do not know who made the dirty picture and obscene video of the prosecutrix. 12. PW-5 mother of the prosecutrix stated in her statement that on 22.09.2014 when her daughter returned from coaching, her friend Riya Chhabra told her that her obscene video clipping has come in mobile phone. She further stated that after a while, her sister-in- law Mamta Mishra came to her house and said that her daughter’s obscene video has come in her husband’s mobile phone. She further stated that when she saw the video, the voice of the accused was in the video. She further in her cross examination stated that she has not seen the accused filming the video and no photo of accused in the 5 CRA No. 439 of 2016 video. However, she stated that the voice of the accused is clearly audible in the video. 13. PW-6 prosecutrix stated in her examination-in-chief that her friend Riya Chhabra told her about the video and thereafter she went home and told her mother about the video. She further stated that at the same time her aunt also came and told her mother about the video and showed her the video in the mobile phone. She further stated that for last 4 year the accused used to follow her and used to tell her that if she will not talk to her he will make obscene video of her. 14. PW- 9 namely Rajesh Mishra stated that she knew the accused and the prosecutrix. He further stated that on 22.09.2014 when he returned from night duty and checked his mobile phone he saw an obscene video in his phone and the video was of the prosecutrix. He further stated that in the video the voice of accused can be heard. He further stated that the mobile phone is seized from him and the seizure memo is Ex.P-3. 15. PW-10 father of the prosecutrix stated that his relative namely Mamta Mishra came to his house and told that obscene video of her daughter has come in the mobile phone of her husband and showed them the same. He further stated that in the video the voice of the accused was clear. However he has not stated anything about sender of the video. 16. Considering the entire evidence, I am of the view that the mobile phone of the appellant is not seized which ought to be the main 6 CRA No. 439 of 2016 evidence to examine whether the video was recorded by him or not. Further, there is no eye witness or oral evidence to prove that the video was recorded by the accused or transmitted by his phone. 17. Further the seizure of mobile phone Article A1 is of the relative of the prosecutrix and examination of the same does not show the sender of the video and all other are circumstantial evidence. 18. It is well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence. Thus, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 19. In a result, the appellant is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 20. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Jyoti