1 2025:CGHC:43610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 190 of 2008 Shyamlal S/o Shri Nankiram Khadia, aged about 30 years, R/o Dumarpail, Thana- Pithoura, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Satabdi Bagchi, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 28.08.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 18.01.2008 passed by learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 31/2006, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 451 of IPC R.I. for two months with fine amount of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 15 days 2. Brief facts of the case are that the incident took place on 22.01.2005 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 between 5:00 to 5:30 pm. Thereafter, the First Information Report (Ex.P/3) was lodged on 23.01.2005 at about 10: 30 am at Police Station- Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). As per the FIR, the complainant/prosecutrix is residing in village- Dumarpali and she is labourer and she lives with her grandmother. On the date of incident, she was lighting the fire for cooking at about 5:00 to 5:30 in the evening, at that time the present appellant and co-accused Ramji Yadav entered her house and held her with an intent to outrage her modesty. She screamed for help to her aunt, then the co-accused gagged her mouth. The appellant asked about her mother, then she said that her mother is not at home, being aware of the fact they took advantage of the situation and with an intent to outrage her modesty both the accused pushed her to the wall and caressed and thereby pressed her breast. On hue and cry being raised, her aunt (PW-4) came running. By that time, the complainant/prosecutrix was successful in relieving herself from the possession of the accused and somehow she fled by some means and went to the house of PW- 4 and told her about the incident. She had also told the said incident to her grandmother, village’s sarpanch and Guman and lodged a report before the concerned police station. During the investigation, spot map was prepared, caste certificate was seized of the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-6). The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the present appellant for offence under Sections 451 & 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and against the co-accused Ramji Yadav Sections 451 & 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 3 Atrocities) Act, 1989 for alleged commission of offence. The accused have abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statement of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them & pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no witness has been adduced by the accused in their defence. 4. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court has committed manifest error in marshaling of the prosecution evidences. Learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, learned trial Court ought to have seen that the prosecution has failed to prove by cogent evidence that the appellant has committed the alleged offence, therefore the conviction of the appellant is bad in law. The majority of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, hence the conviction of the appellant under Section 451 of IPC is bad- in- law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. The FIR is delayed and the inception of the crime is doubtful and there is no proper explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. The complainant/prosecutrix herself admitted this fact that both accused have not entered in her house, however learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 354 of IPC, but without any reliable evidence has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 451 of IPC. Thus, findings recorded by learned trial court are highly perverse. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 4 5. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. It is evident from record of learned learned trial Court that it framed charges for offence punishable under Sections 451 & 354 read with Section 34 of IPC against the present appellant and for offence punishable under Sections 451 & 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the co-accused Ramji Yadav. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 of IPC by convicting the appellant for offence under Section 451 of IPC. 8. Section 451 of IPC is reproduced herein for ready reference as under:- 451. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.— Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years. 9. Learned trial Court finds that offence under Section 354 of IPC is not made out against the appellant, but finds that the appellant entered the house of the complainant/prosecutrix to commit the offence, so thereby 5 convicted under Section 451 of IPC. 10. Complainant/prosecutrix (PW-6) has stated that in her examination-in- chief that both the accused had entered in her house while she was lighting the fire for cooking in the evening, with an intent to outrage her modesty, but in her cross-examination, she admitted this fact that “ये कहना सही है किक रामलाल और श्यामलाल मेरे घर नहीं आये थे.” 11. Thus, the the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-6) has admitted the suggestion of defence that accused did not enter in her house and learned trial Court thereby acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 354 of IPC, so offence under Section 451 of IPC is not made out against the appellant as the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-6) herself admitted this fact that the accused did not enter in her house, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the admission of the complainant/ prosecutrix(PW-6) minutely in her cross-examination and thereby gave wrong findings, thus, findings recorded by learned trial Court are not sustainable. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.01.2008 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charge leveled against him. The appellant is already on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.(481 of the B.N.S.S), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6 13. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL