1 2025:CGHC:56483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1396 of 2024 1 - Meshram Khunte @ Meshram S/o Faguram Khunte Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Surajpura, P.S. Lalpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 19/11/2025 This criminal revision under Section 438 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant/accused against the order dated 22.11.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli, CG in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2024, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the 2 applicant by reducing the sentence of RI for two years to two years as imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, District Mungeli, CG. 2. Prosecution case, as emerged during the trial is that on 25.01.2020, the complainant lodged FIR against the applicant at police station Lalpur, District Mungeli under Section 354 IPC alleging that at about 2.00 pm, while the complainant/victim was returning from Kanteli to her house at Sarajpura by bicycle, upon reaching near the pond at Main Road, Village Hardidih, Mungeli, the applicant stopped her, grabbed her hands and kissed her cheek. It was further alleged that when the complainant tried to resist herself and shouted, the accused pressed her mouth and attempted to disrobe her by by pulling her clothes with intent to outrage her modesty. Upon sighting a motorcycle approaching, he fled from the spot. The complainant narrated about the incident to her parents and the FIR was lodged by the complainant on the same day. Based on the said report Crime No.14/2020 was registered under Sections 354 and 341 IPC. The victim/complainant was medically examined by Dr.S.P.Baghel (PW-4) who opined that there were no external injuries except a scratch mark on her right hand. Spot map was prepared and after completion of investigation, statements of the victim and witnesses were recorded and the charge sheet was filed before the trial court. 3. The trial court examined 6 prosecution witnesses including the father and mother of the victim and one defence witness. After hearing the parties, the trial court convicted the applicant under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to RI for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with 3 default stipulation. However, the court acquitted the applicant under Section 341 IPC. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence reducing RI to one year but maintained the conviction and the fine amount. The appeal was otherwise dismissed. 4. Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that both the trial court and the Sessions Judge have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. He emphasized that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, especially the statements of the parents of the victim (PW-2 & 3) is not trustworthy and is unreliable as there was no corroboration of material facts. He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the statements on record reveal inconsistencies and lack of direct evidence about the alleged outraging of modesty. He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry between the applicant and the family of the complainant who support the opposing candidate in local elections. This fact was also admitted by the complainant (PW-1) as well as her parents (PW-2 & 3) in their cross examination. He submits that there is procedural lacunae in the registration of FIR after taking advice which is vague and undermines the prosecution case and therefore it is submitted that the impugned judgments are vitiated by error of law and facts and deserve to be set aside in the interest of justice. It is submitted that Investigating Officer (PW-5) admitted in his cross-examination that ß;g dguk lgh gS fd ihfZMrk ds fyf[kr f’kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij vkjksih dks Qalkus ds fy,z >wBk fjiksVZ ntZ fd;k x;k FkkA ” 5. He submits that the alleged incident occurred on a public place in 4 broad daylight at 2.00 pm. near main road with a motorcycle approaching; however no independent eyewitnesses were examined by the prosecution except the parents of the complainant who are interested witnesses. The Investigating Officer has admitted that nothing has been mentioned in the rojnamcha sanha as to when the medical examination was conducted and whether the site map was prepared as per the statement of the complainant, raising suspicion that the incident might have taken place as alleged. He further submits that no independent witness was examined despite the public location of the incident, undermining the credibility of the prosecution case. The mother of the complainant (PW-3) admitted that there exists enmity between the family of the complainant and the applicant indicating a possible motive for false implication. He further submits that the applicant is a young person aged about 26 years without any previous criminal antecedents and is preparing for the Police Constable Recruitment Examination and stands a promising chance in his career. 6. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat Vs.State of Maharashtra (2005) 9 SCC 4, wherein the Apex Court has observed “that the strained relations between the parties were key to understanding the context of the case. The trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution case because no independent witness was examined and the prosecution witnesses were either interested or hostile. The absence of independent and reliable testimony led to the conclusion that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Thus, the principles of law laid down in the above case emphasize 5 the necessity of independent evidence and the importance of scrutinizing the credibility and motives of interested witnesses. It is further submitted that the fine amount has been deposited by the applicant. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly supported the conviction and submits that the matter involves factual controversies which have been considered at length by the trial court and the appellate court. It has been argued that the Court must not lose sight that the statement of the prosecution under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is consistent and the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts are based on the appreciation of relevant and admissible evidence. The victim’s testimony is consistent and credible, corroborated by eyewitness account and police investigation. So far as the delay and procedural lapses is concerned, these do not vitiate the entire prosecution case, especially as such delays can occur due to trauma or fear in sexual offences. He submits that the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically lead to acquittal in such crimes given the sensitiveness of facts and privacy concerns. However, the statement of the Investigating Officer regarding possibility of a false complaint and the admitted enmity and political rivalry must be weighed carefully. The guiding principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat (supra) which highlights the importance of scrutinizing testimony of interested witnesses and necessity of independent evidence. He submits that both the courts have applied due judicial caution and have followed procedural safeguards while 6 convicting the applicant. Hence, no interference with the conviction and sentence is warranted. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, their rival submissions and perused the records carefully including the material brought forth by the parties, and considering the facts as well as judicial precedent including the matter of Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 9 SCC 4, this Court observes that the applicant has been convicted primarily on the basis of testimony of the victim and her parents, none of whom qualify as independent witnesses. The Investigating Officer(PW-5) has admitted that the FIR might have been lodged based on a written complaint that implicated the applicant falsely. The considerable delay of approximately eight hours in lodging the FIR despite the police station being in close proximity, raises serious doubt about the immediacy and authenticity of the complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that the FIR has been registered after taking advice. The alleged offence occurred in broad daylight at a busy public place yet no independent witness has been examined as eyewitness. The medical examination revealed no substantive injury pointing to physical struggle, save a minor scratch on the complainant’s arm. There is clear evidence of past enmity and political rivalry between the parties, admitted by the complainant’s own parents which provides a strong motive for false implication. The Investigation procedure itself was flawed with no proper recording of timing and preparation of documents. The Apex Court in the matter of Panduran Sitaram Bhagwat (supra) has firmly held that where interested witnesses form the sole basis for 7 conviction and where no independent and corroborative evidence exists, benefit of doubt must to to the accused to prevent miscarriage of justice. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the applicant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction by both the Courts cannot be sustained considering these cumulative reasonable doubts. 11. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the principle of benefit of doubt, the conviction under Section 354 IPC cannot be sustained. The impugned judgments dated 20.06.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli in Criminal Case No. 530 of 2020 and the judgment dated 22.11.2024 of the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2024 are hereby set aside and the applicant stands acquitted of the charges under Sections 354 IPC. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 12. The revision is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.12.10 13:59:21 +0530