1 / 9 CRA No. 859 of 2016 2025:CGHC:60021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 859 of 2016 Anil Kumar Singh S/o Late Dineshchanndra Singh Aged About 51 Years Deputy Ranger, Dhourpur, Police Station Dhourpur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh. Present Address Pratappur Naka, Saheli Gali, Police Station Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 10/12/2025 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 04.07.2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 69/2009 by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.16 14:39:46 +0530 2 / 9 CRA No. 859 of 2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 354 of the IPC R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulations 2. According to the prosecution case, on 28.12.2008 at about 10:30 a.m., the accused Anil Singh, who is the Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department, took the prosecutrix, who is the Forest Guard, on his motorcycle to Kamalapur to inspect an ongoing excavation work, and thereafter they proceeded to village Korcha where they had lunch at the house of Beat Guard Shivdas. At about 7:30 p.m., while returning to Kusmi on the motorcycle, the accused stopped near Ratasili forest on the pretext of urinating; after returning, he allegedly caught the prosecutrix’s with intent to outrage her modesty and released her only when another motorcycle passed by. The prosecutrix again sat on his motorcycle and as they proceeded towards Kusmi, the accused again attempted to touch her inappropriately, which she resisted. Near a nala, the prosecutrix fell from the motorcycle and sustained injuries on her left wrist. The accused then took her to Kusmi. She informed her brother of the incident the same night and reported the matter to the DFO the next day. Subsequently, a written complaint was lodged on 31-12-2008 and thereafter, FIR (Ex. P-2) was lodged at PS Kusmi on 1.1.2009 vide Ex.P/2. 3 / 9 CRA No. 859 of 2016 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. The caste certificate of the victim was seized vide Ex. P-4 and the appellant was arrested. 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 12 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 04.07.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix clearly shows that she voluntarily accompanied the appellant to the place where the alleged incident occurred and returned with him without raising any objection, which negates the commission of any offence under Section 354 of the IPC. It was further argued that the trial court erred in relying solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony, which was not corroborated by any independent witness, indicating a false implication of the appellant. The injuries sustained by the prosecutrix were explained as a fall from a motorcycle, and she did not inform 4 / 9 CRA No. 859 of 2016 anyone about any alleged outrage of modesty, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. The learned counsel also contended that the trial judge wrongly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant on presumptions, ignoring the delay in lodging the complaint. Learned counsel would submit that being the superior officer of the victim, the appellant asked her to stay at the place of her posting i.e. beat (Head quarter), however, she failed to comply with the said instructions and lodged the false report against the appellant. Considering the enmity between the prosecutrix and the appellant, the belated report, and the absence of any credible legal evidence, the learned counsel submitted that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 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. She also submitted that by taking undue advantage of his official position, the appellant on the pretext of duty took her on his motorcycle and while returning in the late evening in the midst of the forest area he outraged the modesty of the victim, who is also the employee of the Forest Department. 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 victim is a woman 5 / 9 CRA No. 859 of 2016 belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category and the accused knowingly attacked or used criminal force on her with the intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty ? 10. PW-2 victim stated that that she belongs to the Uraon tribal community and at the relevant time was posted as a Forest Guard in Beat Serengdah under Samri Sub-Forest Range, where the accused Anil Singh, was her superior officer. She deposed that on the date of the incident, the accused took her on his motorcycle from Kusmi to Kamalapur to inspect digging work and later to Korandha, where he consumed liquor with other forest personnel at the rented house of Beat Guard Shivdas. At about 8:00–8:30 p.m., while returning, the accused stopped the motorcycle near Ratasili forest on the pretext of urinating and forcibly caught hold of her and outraged her modesty; when she tried to escape, he chased and caught her, but released her on seeing another motorcycle approaching. Thereafter, he again forcibly made her sit on his motorcycle and on the way towards Kusmi touched her thigh, causing her to resist and fall from the motorcycle, resulting in swelling in her hand. She informed Forest Guards Gulshan Yadav and Balroop Singh by phone from Korandha and later narrated the incident to her sister and brother on reaching home. She further stated that although she attempted to lodge a written complaint at the DFO office, Ambikapur on 30.12.2008 and 31.12.2008, it was not accepted and latter lodged the FIR at Police Station Kusmi on 01.01.2009. 6 / 9 CRA No. 859 of 2016 11. PW-1 The Medical Officer deposed that on 01.01.2009 he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC Kusmi, when Constable brought the injured prosecutrix, for medical examination. On examination, he found (i) an irregular bruise measuring 5 × 4 cm on the back of the left palm, dark brown to black in colour; (ii) an irregular abrasion of 4 × 3 cm on the front of the left knee, brown-black in colour; and (iii) an irregular abrasion of 2 × 1 cm on the back of the left elbow, also brown-black in colour. He opined that all injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object, were simple in nature, and were 3 to 5 days old at the time of examination. He proved his report Ex. P-1 bearing his signature. In cross- examination, he stated that the injuries mentioned in his report could occur if a person suddenly falls while running. 12. PW-3 cousin brother of the victim deposed that the prosecutrix belongs to the Uraon tribal community, has been working as a Forest Guard for about 8–9 years and was posted in Serengdah Beat under Kusmi Forest Range at the time of the incident, while the accused was also posted in the same range on a higher position. He stated that on the night of the incident, at about 8 p.m., the prosecutrix sent his cousin Ajit to call him to her house, where she informed him that while returning from Korandha to Kusmi with the accused, the accused had outraged her modesty near Ratasili bamboo forest and that he had previously misbehaved with her on several occasions; she requested him to accompany her to the police station to lodge a report. PW-3 7 / 9 CRA No. 859 of 2016 further stated that 1–2 days later, he went with her to Police Station Kusmi, where she lodged the FIR against the accused. She also told him that the accused, while driving the motorcycle with one hand, attempted to touch her with the other hand, causing her to push him away and fall from the motorcycle, leading to swelling and injury in her hand. 13. On an overall re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court finds no substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-2) is cogent, natural and inspires confidence. Her evidence consistently establishes that the appellant, who was her superior officer and well aware of her Scheduled Tribe status, used criminal force with the intent to outrage her modesty. Her version finds material corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-1, which confirms the injuries sustained by her contemporaneously with the incident and is consistent with her account of having fallen while resisting the appellant’s advances. Further corroboration is available from PW-3, to whom the prosecutrix disclosed the incident at the earliest opportunity, thereby ruling out any possibility of concoction or false implication. The delay in lodging the FIR stands satisfactorily explained in view of her uncontroverted assertion that her complaint was not accepted at the DFO office and that the appellant was a superior officer, which reasonably caused hesitation and fear. Merely because the prosecutrix initially accompanied the appellant in the course of official duty does not, in 8 / 9 CRA No. 859 of 2016 any manner, dilute or negate the subsequent criminal act committed by him. The absence of independent eyewitnesses is not fatal, as offences under Section 354 IPC are generally committed in seclusion and conviction can safely rest on the sole testimony of the victim when found reliable. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and recorded a finding which is neither perverse nor contrary to law. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2016. 14. This Court also finds the conduct of the appellant, a Government servant holding a superior position, to be gravely reprehensible. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a public servant is a trustee of public power and is expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity, discipline and propriety while discharging official duties. In the present case, the appellant misused his official position and authority by taking the prosecutrix, a subordinate staff, on an official duty and subjected her to sexual misconduct during the course of duty hours and official travel. Such conduct constitutes a serious breach of trust reposed in a Government officer and amounts to an aggravating circumstance. 15. As far as the contention of the appellant that he asked the victim to stay at the place of her posting i.e. beat (head quarter) is concerned, no documentary proof has been filled in this regard and even for alleged non compliance of the instructions, no action has 9 / 9 CRA No. 859 of 2016 been taken against the employee i.e. victim. 16. Accordingly, the CRA is dismissed. 17. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of sentence. 18. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance, who will inform the appellant that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 19. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti