1 2025:CGHC:61274 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2491 of 2025 1 - Lakhanlal Sahu S/o Umesh Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Aarang, Ps Aarang, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ..Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shr i Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board 16.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. H-04/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Section 392 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 02 months R.I. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.20 13:19:44 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 10.10.2022 victim appeared before the Police Station Mahasamund and submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) stating that the informant is a student of B.Sc. First Year at Mahaprabhu Vallabhacharya Government Higher Secondary College, Mahasamund. About one year prior to the incident, she became acquainted with one Lakhan Sahu, resident of Arang, during a family function. Thereafter, they used to communicate with each other over mobile phone. Subsequently, Lakhan Sahu started exerting pressure upon her and forcibly insisted that she should either live with him or marry him. On 07/10/2022 at about 5:00 PM, when the informant was returning from college along with her friends and had reached near Vishal Mega Mart situated on B.T.I. Road, Lakhan Sahu arrived there in a car along with two associates. He caught hold of her arm and attempted to forcibly pull her into the car. During the said incident, the accused Lakhan also robbed an amount of ₹2,000 kept in her Redmi mobile phone. Upon intervention by her friends, the accused Lakhan Sahu fled away from the spot along with his associates. Thereafter, the accused Lakhan Sahu started uploading photographs of his and the informant on the social media platform Instagram, about which the informant informed her family members. On the basis of the said information, the police registered First Information Report (Exhibit P-2) at Police Station Mahasamund as Crime No. 453/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was commenced. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited documents in support of 3 case of the prosecution. The appellant has neither examined any witness in his defence nor exhibited any document. 4. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 02 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is only 20 years old. The learned Trial Court has completely ignored the deposition of victim herself who has stated that the said Mobile Phone and the inserted sim was given by the Appellant to her and the Amount worth Rs 2000/-which was kept in between Mobile and Cover was invisible. The admission on the part of Victim that after the alleged incident, her father and mother have shifted her to Village and after their photographs when went viral on Instagram, they have lodged the FIR which is crystal clearly done after thought. The strict rule of evidence has not been followed in the instant matter which leads to pass the impugned order. The Victim herself has stated that she was having love affair with Appellant and the Mobile and Phone was given by him. She was continuously chatting with him from many Instagram ID's. There is material 4 contradictions on her part. He further submits that there are contradictions and omissions in the statements recorded by the police as well as the depositions of the other witnesses especially PW 1 who was the best witness of entire incident. She herself has narrated different stories time to time. The trial court has committed illegality with material irregularity which leads to pass impugned order. The trial court has completely overlooked the court statements available on records. The evidence of the victim does not inspire the confidence and therefore no offences under IPC is made out against the appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in AIROnline 2024 SC 764. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant and have submitted that considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant which is justified and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 9. On perusal of the records, it is alleged that on 10.10.2022 victim appeared before the Police Station Mahasamund and submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) stating that the informant is a student of B.Sc. First Year at Mahaprabhu Vallabhacharya Government Higher Secondary College, Mahasamund. About one 5 year prior to the incident, she became acquainted with one Lakhan Sahu, resident of Arang, during a family function. Thereafter, they used to communicate with each other over mobile phone. Subsequently, Lakhan Sahu started exerting pressure upon her and forcibly insisted that she should either live with him or marry him. On 07/10/2022 at about 5:00 PM, when the informant was returning from college along with her friends and had reached near Vishal Mega Mart situated on B.T.I. Road, Lakhan Sahu arrived there in a car along with two associates. He caught hold of her arm and attempted to forcibly pull her into the car. During the said incident, the accused Lakhan also robbed an amount of ₹2,000 kept in her Redmi mobile phone. Upon intervention by her friends, the accused Lakhan Sahu fled away from the spot along with his associates. Thereafter, the accused Lakhan Sahu started uploading photographs of his and the informant on the social media platform Instagram, about which the informant informed her family members. On the basis of the said information, the police registered First Information Report 10. Firstly, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 392 of IPC. In order to prove the offence, the victim has been examined as PW-1. 11. The victim (PW-1), during her cross-examination, has admitted that there was a love relationship between herself and the accused, and that she used to voluntarily go out with the accused to gardens and other places of her own free will. She further admitted that the 6 mobile phone which she claimed was snatched by the accused Lakhan was, in fact, owned by the accused himself, and that the said phone had been given to her by the accused for the purpose of conversation. She also admitted that the SIM card installed in the said mobile phone was registered in the name of the accused. She further admitted that the mobile phone was fitted with a black cover, and that if paper or money was kept inside the mobile cover, it would not be visible from outside. She admitted that no person other than herself was aware that money had been kept inside the mobile cover. In addition thereto, in paragraph 14 of her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that a single note of ₹2,000 was kept inside the mobile cover, and stated that four currency notes of ₹500 each were kept therein. The prosecutrix further expressed her inability to state the registration number, model, or colour of the car allegedly used at the time of the incident. 12. Namita Sinha (PW-8) has stated that she was unable to identify the accused persons. With regard to the incident, she has given a version different from the prosecution story and stated that on the date of the incident, she along with the prosecutrix and another girl was returning from college to her room. At about 4:00 PM, the prosecutrix made a phone call and called a person named Lakhan. Upon his arrival, the said boy caught hold of the hand of the prosecutrix, which she witnessed from a considerable distance. She further stated that the prosecutrix and the said boy were already in a love affair. Even when questioned by the prosecution, she did not make any statement in support of the prosecution case. During her 7 cross-examination, she admitted that immediately after meeting the person who had alighted from the car, the prosecutrix met her. However, the prosecutrix did not disclose to her that the said person had snatched her mobile phone, taken away money, or removed money kept in the phone. Thus, the said witness has not supported the prosecution case. 13. From the evidence of the victim, it transpires that it is further admitted by the victim that the mobile phone, which was allegedly snatched, belonged to the appellant himself and the SIM card inserted therein was also registered in his name. She has also admitted that the amount of ₹2,000/- was kept concealed inside the mobile cover and was not visible from outside, and that no other person except herself was aware of the presence of money inside the cover. In such circumstances, the essential ingredient of “robbery” under Section 392 IPC, namely dishonest intention accompanied by force or fear, is not established beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The version of the victim regarding the denomination of the currency notes allegedly kept inside the mobile cover is also inconsistent. While the prosecution case suggests recovery of ₹2,000/-, the victim in her cross-examination denied that it was a single note of ₹2,000/- and stated that four notes of ₹500/- each were kept therein. Such inconsistency further dents the credibility of her testimony. 15. Moreover, the victim has expressed her inability to disclose 8 even the basic particulars of the alleged vehicle, such as its registration number, model or colour, which according to the prosecution was used in the commission of the offence. This omission assumes significance, particularly when the prosecution alleges an attempted abduction and robbery in a public place. 16. The testimony of Namita Sinha (PW-8), an independent witness and companion of the victim at the relevant time, does not support the prosecution case at all. She has clearly stated that the victim herself had called the appellant, that there existed a prior love affair between them, and that after meeting the appellant, the victim did not disclose any incident of snatching of mobile phone or money. PW-8 has thus resiled from the prosecution version and her evidence creates a serious doubt about the occurrence as alleged. 17. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that though conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must inspire confidence and be of sterling quality. In the present case, the evidence of PW-1 is not only inconsistent but also stands contradicted by her own admissions and by the testimony of PW-8. The prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Section 392 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 18. The learned Trial Court, in convicting the appellant, has failed to properly appreciate the material contradictions, omissions and admissions appearing in the prosecution evidence and has overlooked the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in criminal trials. The benefit of doubt arising from such infirmities 9 ought to have been extended to the appellant. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. H-04/2024, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years with fine, is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 392 IPC. The appellant is on bail. 20. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. 21. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti