1 2025:CGHC:49214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 693 of 2022 1 - Tijram Yadav S/o Budhari Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Karhi, Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 25/09/2025 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.3.2022 passed by the Special Judge (FTSC) POCSO Act, Mungeli, District Mungeli in Misc. Criminal Case No.27/2020 whereby appellant/ accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year 2 and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 2 months. 2. As per the prosecution, facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 25.5.2020 at about 6-7 pm when minor victim (PW2) was returning from house of her grandparents with buttermilk (मट्ठा), on the way, appellant/ accused pulled her scarf (चुनरी), abused, caught hold of her hand and pulled her towards him with ill intention. In all this, clothes (salwar kurti) of victim (PW2) were torn. Somehow, victim (PW2) managed to free herself from the accused, ran away to her house and told her parents about the incident. Thereafter, accused came in front of her house, started abusing her parents by using obscene language and asked them to open the door, at that time, women commandos of the village came there, on seeing them, accused went away, from in front of the house of victim (PW2). A written complaint (Ex.P5) was made by victim on 26.5.2020 at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli against the appellant/accused, based on which, FIR (Ex.P6) was registered against him for offence under Sections 354, 294 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO, Act’). 3. Statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned Magistrate. Since victim was minor (as per prosecution), her Dakhil Kharij Register Ex.P3(c) of Government Girls Middle School, Sargaon was seized. Spot map vide Ex.P7 was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 354, 294 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 of the POCSO Act was filed against the appellant/ accused. Learned trial Court framed charges under 3 Section 354, 294 of the I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. Statement of appellant/ accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, in which, he denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed false implication. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted appellant/ accused of the charges under Section 294 of the I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, by granting him benefit of doubt but convicted him for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as has been mentioned in the opening paragraph. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that victim and appellant are resident of same village and the FIR was lodged after one day of the said incident. Though, Ramkali (PW6) and Sushila (PW7) are said to be eye-witnesses, but, in written complaint (Ex.P5), it has not been mentioned that they are eye-witness of the incident. It has also not been stated by victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon. Ramkali Bai (PW6) herself has admitted in her cross- examination that house of Dhannu, Santosh, Netram, and Cheddilal are situated at the place of incident, but, none of them are examined. He next submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the appellant/ accused and there is no such clinching and legally admissible evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove their case. The evidence adduced by prosecution, in support of deposition of victim cannot be said to be eye-witnesses account. Even, alleged torn clothes (salwar kurti) and scarf (chunari) of 4 victim (PW2) are not seized. Despite that, only on the basis of uncorroborated deposition of victim (PW2) and invalid deposition of alleged eye-witnesses (PW6 and PW7), learned trial Court has convicted the appellant which is perverse and illegal, hence, learned counsel for appellant prays that impugned judgment may be set-aside and appellant may be acquitted by allowing the instant appeal. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and submits that there are two eye-witnesses Ramkali Bai (PW6) and Sushila Yadav (PW7), who have supported the case of prosecution and deposition of victim (PW2), therefore, the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The appellant is not entitled for acquittal and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and have gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date and time of incident when victim was going towards her house from the house of her grandparents, the appellant snatched her scarf (chunari), abused her, and when she asked to return her scarf, the appellant molested her by holding her hand and pulling her towards him on account of which her clothes (salwar kurti) got torn. 10. In the written complaint lodged by victim (PW2), on the basis of which FIR was registered, she has stated that when she was returning towards her house from the house of her grandparents, the appellant snatched her scarf first, thereafter when she asked for her scarf (chunari), the appellant caught hold of her hand and pulled her towards him, due to which her right sleeves of clothes (salwar kurti) got torn, but, somehow she managed to get herself 5 freed and went to her house where she informed about the incident to her parents. Thereafter, the appellant came in front of her house and started abusing her parents and after seeing the women commandos of the village coming there, he went away, whereas, Victim (PW2) in her deposition has simply stated that at the time of incident, when she was returning to her house from the house of her grandparents, on the way, appellant caught hold of her hand, molested her and torn her clothes, which she informed her parents and, thereafter, reported the matter. On scanning of the written complaint made by the victim (PW2) on the basis of which FIR was registered as well as the deposition of the victim (PW2), it appears that in her (PW2) deposition, she has nowhere stated that appellant had snatched her scarf, abused her and pulled her towards him, thus, material allegations made in the written complaint are missing in her deposition, inasmuch as, victim has not specifically stated in her deposition that appellant had snatched her scarf, abused her and pulled her towards him and even she has made vague allegation that appellant has torn her clothes. But, such torn clothe has not been seized by the Police. 11. The victim in her cross-examination at para 8 has given ambiguous answer as she has firstly stated that the torn clothes were given to the Police and thereafter, she has stated that though the clothe was shown to the police, but the same had not been given to the Police. Moreover, PW4 father of victim (PW2), who is the hearsay witness as the victim had told him about the incident, has also stated that appellant had torn the clothes of victim, but, no such torn clothes has been seized by the Police. As such, in absence of seizure of such torn clothe, it cannot be said that the appellant had torn the clothe of victim (PW2). On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are serious inconsistencies and 6 omissions in the statement of victim (PW2) as she has not stated true facts before the Court. 12.Further, Ramkali Bai (PW6) and Sushila Yadav (PW7), who are women commandos, are said to be the eye witnesses. In their deposition, they have deposed that they had seen the incident, however, they are not named in the written complaint (Ex.P5), made by victim (PW2), as eye-witnesses to the incident also in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Rather as per written complaint (Ex.P5) and FIR (Ex.P6) when victim (PW2) reached her house and appellant also reached in front of her house by following her, at that time, women commandos i.e., PW6 and PW7, reached there, and on seeing them, appellant went away from that place. Thus, as per first version of victim (PW2) i.e., written complaint (Ex.P5) & FIR (Ex.P6), alleged women commandos (PW6 and PW7) reached the spot when the victim had gone in front of her house, therefore, it cannot be said that PW6 and PW7 are eye- witnesses to the incident, hence, their deposition are not found to be trustworthy. Even, in the cross-examination of the victim, on being asked about missing of names of PW6 & PW7 in the written complaint, she has not given any satisfactory explanation and only stated that though she had signed the written complaint, but did not read it and she did not know as to why names of PW6 & PW7 were not mentioned, therefore, it cannot be said that PW6 & PW7 are the eye-witnesses as such their deposition cannot be considered as a supporting factor of deposition of the victim. 13.Thus, in support of deposition of victim, no reliable witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Though, as per statement of PW6, houses of Dhannu, Santosh, Chediram and Netram are situated near the place of incident, but, they have not been examined by the prosecution. Moreover, alleged torn clothes 7 (Salwar Kurti) of victim (PW2) have not been seized by the Police, to establish as to what act of molestation was done by the appellant and there are material inconsistencies in the deposition of victim and written complaint (Ex.P5) made by her as well as her own statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore, conviction cannot be based on such type of solitary statement of victim. In the case of Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rep. By Inspector of Police (2024 INSC 193) the Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring to its earlier judgment has held in paragraph 15 as under:- “What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution’s case. While a victim’s testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.” 14.In view of the finding recorded by this Court in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Court are based on unreliable evidence, hence, not sustainable. 15.In the result, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC is set-aside and he is acquitted of the said charge granting him benefit of doubt. 16.The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a period of 8 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 17.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. 18.The Criminal Appeal is allowed. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Ayushi AYUSHI SINGH Digitally signed by AYUSHI SINGH Date: 2025.10.06 16:10:51 +0530