1 2025:CGHC:51866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 606 of 2016 • Jai Kumar, S/o Mohan Kumar Masih, aged about 40 Years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Chhawni, P.S. Jamul, Tahsil and District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector, Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 0000077/2016, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 13.04.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 25243/2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, Chhattisgarh, convicting the applicant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.10.17 14:53:19 +0530 2 default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.05.2013 at about 5:00 am, while complainant-Nema Sahu was closing the door of her house to go out to attend the call of the nature, at that time, accused-applicant, with an intention to outrage her modesty, came there and caught hold of her hands. When she raised an alarm, her neighbour- Biroja Sahu came to the spot and on seeing her, accused-applicant fled away from there. Thereafter, she went to Police Station Jamul and lodged a report regarding the incident, on the basis of which, FIR (Ex.P-2) has been registered against the applicant. During investigation, spot map has been prepared vide Ex.P-3 and vide Ex.P-1 broken bangles of victim were seized vide Ex.P-1. Thereafter, the statements of witnesses were recorded and accused / applicant was arrested vide Ex.P-5. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, C.G. The accused / applicant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant by way of a criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 23.06.2016, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, are not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for 3 the aforesaid offence. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with each other and the contents of FIR (Ex.P-2). He also submits there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to suggest that applicant is the author of the crime in question. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. PW-1 Birajo Bai has stated in her deposition that on the date of the incident, i.e., 17.04.2013, at about 5:00 a.m., she was standing on the terrace. However, this fact is not mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-1). She has further stated that when she turned around, she saw the applicant dragging the victim towards her room, but this fact is also not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P-2). In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she had mentioned in her statement (Ex.D-1) that at the time of the incident, the victim was shouting loudly, whereas in the FIR (Ex.P-2), it is specifically mentioned that the victim was shouting loudly at the time of incident. 9. PW-2 Nehru Lal Sahu has stated that on the date of the incident, he had 4 gone to attend his duties, and when he returned, his wife informed him that while she was closing the door to go out to attend the call of nature, at that time, the applicant came there and pulled her. In his cross- examination, he admitted that the police did not get the victim medically examined. 10. PW-3 Pratap has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident, he was walking on the terrace of his house, at that time, PW-1 Birajo shouted, saying that 'someone is misbehaving with her daughter-in-law and you are still sleeping'. Thereafter, he went there and PW-1 Bijaro Bai told him that when the victim had gone to fetch water from the tap, the applicant had caught hold of her hands. However, in her statement PW-1 Bijaro Bai has not mentioned this fact. In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of incident, he was sleeping and that PW-1 Bijaro Bai had informed him about the incident. He also admitted that PW-1 Bijaro Bai was shouting, but she did not disclose the name of the person involved. 11. PW-4 Premvati has stated that on the date of incident, at about 5:00 am, her daughter-in-law woke up to go to the toilet and after filing the water from the tap, when she was closing the door, at that time, applicant came there and caught hold of her hands. This incident was witnessed by PW-1 Bijaro Bao, who shouted, saying that 'you all are sleeping and applicant is misbehaving with the victim'. She has further stated that after returning home, victim informed him that applicant was misbehaving with her and upon seeing PW-1 Bijaro Bai, he fled away. However, these facts are not mentioned in the statement of PW-1 Bijaro Bai. In cross-examination, she (PW-4) admitted that she did not see the incident. 12. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are 5 material inconsistencies in the statement of PW-1 Bijaro Bai, who is said to have witnessed the incident and her statement does not corroborate with the statements of other prosecution witnesses and the contents of FIR (Ex.P-2) with respect to the alleged incident. Moreover, victim could not be examined as she passed away. In addition, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to establish the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question. 13. In the matter of Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated in para 63 that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. 14. Thus, in the light of aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court and upon consideration of the evidence available on record, this Court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the applicant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court were totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. 15. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 13.04.2016 and that of Appellate Court dated 23.06.2016 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant are acquitted of the charge under Section 354 of IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt. 16. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not 6 discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 481 of BNSS. 17. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Akhilesh