1 2025:CGHC:17351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 263 of 2016 1 - Laxaman Yadav S/o Late Mathura Singh Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Thana -Dipka, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station A.J.A.K., Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 15/04/2025 1. The present Criminal appeal is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2016, passed in Special Case No. 02/2015 by which the 2 learned Special Judge [SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], District-Korba (CG),whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence In Default of fine U/s 457 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- Additional R.I. for 1 month. U/s 354 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- Additional R.I. for 1 month. U/s 3(1)(XI) of SC & ST Act R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- Additional R.I. for 1 month. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that prosecution case in brief is that the applicant Kanchan Bai, wife of Karamlal Gond, resident of village Devgaon, police station Dipka, District Korba, belongs to the Gond Scheduled Tribe. On 23.10.14 at about 9:00 pm, she was sleeping in her home with her children. Her husband Karamlal had gone for a walk towards the colony. At about 9:00 pm, the accused Laxman Singh Yadav entered her house and started molesting her by holding her hands and arms with the intention of outraging her modesty. When the applicant protested, he started threatening her. At that very moment, her husband Karam Lal came. Seeing him, the accused pushed her and ran away. Her husband saw and heard the incident. The applicant and her husband informed the people in the neighborhood about the said incident. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 6 witnesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded under 3 Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. One defence witness adduced by him in his defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated and considered the documents available on record. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record placed on record. 9. The question for consideration before this Court is whether the learned Trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 456, 354 of IPC? 4 10. PW-1/ victim has deposed in her examination-in-chief that on the date of incident at around 9 pm the accused entered her house and with the intent to outrage her modesty he hold her hands. When she shouted then her husband came and seeing her husband the accused fled away. 11. PW-2/ husband of victim has deposed in para 2 of his examination-in-chief that on the date of incident he went out of the house at around 7 pm whereafter the accused entered his house. When he returned back home he saw that the accused is present in her house and the accused hid himself upon seeing him (PW- 2). In para 3 he further deposed that when he asked her wife/victim about the incident then she told him that the accused was molesting her by holding her hands. In para 6 this witness had deposed that prior to the incident he had good relations with the accused. He further deposed that he has stopped meeting the accused since last one year. In para 7 the accused was asked the leading question why he stopped meeting the accused since last one year? The accused answered that earlier also the accused used to enter his house in the same way to watch TV. He would not listen even after being stopped and would keep watching TV till 1.30-2:00 in the night, while he was not at home and used to go to his duty. That is why his relationship with the accused has deteriorated. 12. PW-4/ Nandu Singh has deposed in his statement that PW-2/ husband of the victim called him because he is Ward Panch and 5 his relative. He further deposed that PW-2 has told him that the accused entered the house of victim with intent to outrage her modesty and upon seeing her husband the accused pushed him and ran away. 13. From the deposition of this witness, it is clear that the accused ran away after seeing PW-2 and from the deposition of PW-2, it is clear that when he returned home, he had seen the accused was present in his house and his wife was also present there, upon asking his wife, she told that the accused tried to molest her. As per the statement of PW-2, no alarm was raised by his wife (PW- 1) when the accused entered her house and molested her. Further, PW-1 stated that when the accused entered her house and caught hold her hands to molest her then she shouted upon which her husband came in the house. Therefore, there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Also, no independent witness have been examined by the prosecution. PW-4 is the uncle of PW-2 and Itwar Singh is the elder brother of PW-2. 14. Close scrutiny of evidence on record reflects that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. As per the version of the victim, the accused entered her house and when she shouted then her husband came in the house. As per the version of the husband of victim, when he returned home and see that the accused is present in his home, then upon seeing him the accused hide himself. As per the 6 version of PW-4, the accused told him that when he returned home then upon seeing him the accused pushed him and ran away. 15. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has committed error in convicting the appellant under Sections 354, 457 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 16. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 354, 457 of IPC and under Section 3(1) (XI) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby set-aside. 17. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of 6 months in light of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 18. Records of the trial court be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima