1 2025:CGHC:17567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 495 of 2016  Dhal Singh S/o Romlal Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Charbhatha, Police Station Gunderdehi, Civil And Rev. District Balod Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Gunderdehi, Distrct - Balod Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Kirhsna Tandon, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 16.04.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.02.2016 passed by learned Session Judge, Balod, District- Balod, (CG) in Session Trial No.2300038/2015, whereby appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 456 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days additional RI. Under Section 354 r/w 511 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year & fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days additional RI. 2. This appeal was filed on 05.04.2016 and appellant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2016. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant in pre-lunch session when the matter was called out for hearing, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr. Krishna Tandaon, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that complainant (father of the victim/prosecutrix) lodged report in the concerned Police Station stating that in the intervening night on 08.07.2013, the appellant entered in his house and tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter (prosecutrix). Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellant for the 3 aforesaid offence. 5. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 6. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 06 witnesses. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. There is love affair between the appellant and prosecutrix, they used to talk each other and this fact is also admitted by the prosecutrix in her evidence. There is exchange of love letters, which are placed on record as Annexure D-1 to D-10. If the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the offence u/s 354 of IPC 4 would not be made out against the appellant as per the version of the prosecutrix. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there are major contradiction and omission in the statements of prosecution witnesses. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded deserves to be set-aside. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of material and evidence available on record and the same requires no interference. 10. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 11. PW-4/prosecutrix in her Court evidence has stated that she knows the appellant, he is her neighbour. She further submits that that her mother seen her when she was taking with the appellant/accused. She also admitted that appellant did not do anything wrong with her. 12. PW-3/father of the prosecutrix in his Court statement has stated that in the intervening night on 08.07.2013, he saw that appellant was standing near the folding/cot (खाट) on which her daughter (prosecutrix) was sleeping and looking at her with bad intention. Appellant used to visit his house 5 and he is his neighbour. He further stated that on many occasions, he tried to convince the appellant and prosecutrix and if the appellant understood him, he does not lodged report against him. He further admitted that he did not see that the appellant do anything wrong with my daughter (prosecutrix). 13. Considering facts of the case, submissions of the counsel for the parties, particularly the love letters (Annexure D-1 to D-10) which shows that the prosecutrix is having talking terms with the appellant/accused and they are having love relationship, further considering that prosecutrix (PW-4) in her evidence admitted that appellant/accused did not do anything wrong with her and this fact is also supported by her father PW-3 in his evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial has committed grave error in convicting the appellant for the aforementioned offence/crime. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 08.02.2016 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the aforementioned charges/offence. 15. Appellant is reported to be on bail, hence, his bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. 6 16. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-