1 CRA No.739/2016 2025:CGHC:52251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 739 of 2016 Bhupendra Verma Kashyap S/o Bhagirathi Kashyap Aged About 27 Years R/o Pendri, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station AJAK Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. D.C. Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 27/10/2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 07/06/2016, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge,Janjgir-Champa, C.G. in Special Sessions Case No.32/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as Under:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.03 18:08:59 +0530 2 CRA No.739/2016 Conviction Sentence U/s 354(A)(1)/509 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, Additional R.I. for 1 month 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that that the victim, Smt. Phuleshwari Mahilane, wife of Vikram Singh Mahilane, aged about 20 years, resident of village Pendri, lodged a report at Police Station Pamgarh that she used to live with her husband and family at village Pendri and was engaged in domestic work. For the past 2–3 days, whenever she went out to attend nature’s call, the accused/appellant of the same village used to watch her with ill intentions. On the date of the incident, 09.12.2015, at about 4:30 p.m., when she went out to attend nature’s call along with her son aged about 1½ years, near the poultry farm of the village, the accused/appellant followed her and asked her to go with him towards the fields. When he came close to her, she slapped him twice. The accused/appellant then attempted to hold her hand. Somehow, she managed to escape from the spot and returned home and thereafter, she narrated the entire incident to her husband Vikram and others villagers. After completion of the investigation, a final report was prepared. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 3 CRA No.739/2016 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution has not proved the case against the appellant beyond all the reasonable doubts. He would submit that learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He would submit that there is no sufficient material available to connect the accused with the crime in question. He would further submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the victim, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 6. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, 4 CRA No.739/2016 the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The question for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offences in question ? 9. In 164 statement, victim PW-4 stated that she lives in the village of Pendi with her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, and his son. The accused, Bhupendra, is from her village. On the date of the incident, 9th December 2015, at around 4:30 in the evening, she was going to the field for nature’s call, then the accused came, caught her hand and started dragging her towards the fields. She further stated that the accused also slapped her child. Thereafter, she freed her hand from appellant’s, slapped him twice, and ran away. After that, she narrated the incident to his husband and lodged a report against the accused. 10.In the FIR, the victim stated that on 09.12.2015, at around 4:30 in the evening, she was going for nature’s call with her one-year-old son behind the poultry farm. At that time, the appellant followed her and came near to her. He signaled her to go towards the field and when the appellant came close to her, she slapped him twice. The appellant was trying to hold her hand. After returning home, she informed her husband and other villagers. 5 CRA No.739/2016 11. In examination-in-chief, victim PW-4 stated in her evidence that she went behind the poultry farm from her house for nature’s call, and at that time, her two-years-old son was with her. The accused followed and signaled her to go towards the field. The accused came close to her, caught hold her hand, and started pulling her toward the field, telling her to go there with him. Thereafter, she freed her hand, slapped the accused twice, and ran back towards the house. However, in cross-examination, the appellant stated that she did not scream or shout at the time of incident. 12. It is the trite law that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the committal court or even to contradict the same. The Supreme Court in the matter of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala1 has held as under:- “27. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is twofold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement; and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164, his evidence in court should be discarded, is not at all warranted. 28. Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the committal Court or even to contradict the same. As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., such 1 (2013) 14 SCC 266 6 CRA No.739/2016 statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence. ” 13. Upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, this Court finds that there exist material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the victim at different stages of the proceedings. In the FIR, the victim merely alleged that the appellant followed her, made a gesture towards the field, and attempted to hold her hand, whereupon she slapped him twice. However, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in her examination-in-chief before the Court, she substantially improved her version by alleging that the appellant caught her hand, dragged her towards the field, and even slapped her child. These are material improvements which go to the root of the prosecution case and formed serious doubt on the credibility of the witness. Further, it is noteworthy that the prosecutrix admitted during cross-examination that she did not raise any alarm or shout for help at the time of the alleged incident. 14. In view of the material contradictions, omissions, and lack of corroborative evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the conviction recorded against him cannot be sustained. 15. In the result, the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence 7 CRA No.739/2016 is set aside. 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. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed. 16. 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 Amardeep