1 2026:CGHC:7125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 682 of 2011 Narayan Sahu, S/o Basavan Sahu, aged about 25 years, Hanuman Nagar, Opposite Rais Kabadi Shop, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate appointed through Legal-Aid For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Judgment on Board 09/02/2026 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 22.11.2011 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2011, arising out of judgment dated 28.02.2011, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.97/10 (wrongly mentioned as 97/02) wherein the accused-applicant has been convicted under Sections 451 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced for S.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.100/-; S.I. for PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.02.10 13:56:35 +0530 2 1 year and fine of Rs.100/- respectively, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 15-15 days each. However, the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and affirmed the conviction of the applicant but reduced the sentence from S.I. 1-1 year to S.I. 4-4 months and further enhanced the fine from Rs.100-100/- to Rs.1,000-1,000/- under both the abovementioned Sections, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 1-1 month each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01/04/2011 at about 5:00 PM, the complainant/victim was sitting in her house at Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, making incense sticks while her husband, Jankaram, had gone to work. At that time, the accused/applicant entered her house, sat near her, and when she tried to move away, he caught hold of her hand and arm with the intention of outraging her modesty and attempted to close the door. On her raising alarm and slapping the accused, he fled from the spot. When her husband returned from work, she narrated the incident to him. Subsequently, a written report was lodged at the police station regarding the incident, on the basis of which, FIR (Ex.P- 01) has been registered against the applicant and statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-02. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First 3 Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 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 judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant by way of a criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 22.11.2011, allowed the appeal in part. 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 the aforesaid offences. She 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 that of the contents of FIR (Ex.P-01). She further submits that the statement of the victim is suspicious and not reliable. Thus, 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 State Counsel, while supporting the impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the 4 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. Complainant/victim (PW-01) has stated in her deposition that on the date of the incident, at about 5:00 p.m., when she was sitting in her house, making incense sticks at that time, the accused/applicant entered her house, and caught hold of her hand and attempted to close the door. When she raised alarm, the applicant fled from the spot. When her husband returned from work, she narrated the incident to him. Subsequently, a written report was lodged at the police station regarding the incident. She has further admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of incident, her elder daughter and her son were also present in the house. 9. Janakram Sahu (PW-02), who is the husband of the victim, in his cross-examination has admitted that his younger brother Mahesh works as a laborer and the accused works as a contractor and his brother used to travel with the accused. He further admitted that when he returned to his house after work, his wife told him that the accused had come to their house, drank water and left, thereafter, he did not return. Though, after the alleged incident, the victim has told her husband that the accused has come to their house and tried to outrage her modesty, but it appears from 5 the statement of her husband that his brother Mahesh and the accused both were well known to each other and the accused used to frequently visit their house, further, the accused has come to their house, drank water and left and thereafter, did not return. 10. Mongra Bai (PW-03), who is the mother-in-law of the victim has deposed that on the date of incident, her daughter-in-law (victim) had told her that the accused entered their house and caught hold her hand, tried to outrage her modesty and had closed the door. She also stated that the victim has also slapped the accused. On the contrary, the victim in her statement has not stated that the accused has closed the door or she slapped him. 11. On careful perusal of statements of the above witnesses, it appears that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the victim (PW-01), her husband (PW-02) and her mother-in-law (PW-03). Victim’s testimony does not corroborate either with the statements of other prosecution witnesses or with the contents of the FIR (Ex. P-01) concerning the alleged incident on relevant facts. This apart, the elder daughter and son of the victim who were present in the house on the date of incident, have not been duly examined by the prosecution. Furthermore, there is delay in lodging the FIR and the same has not been satisfactorily explained. Thus, the occurrence of the alleged incident appears to be doubtful and the statement of the victim is not reliable, in such circumstances, conviction of the applicant is not sustainable. It is 6 pertinent to note that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; however, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge this obligation by producing cogent, credible, and clinching evidence to establish the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offences. 12. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offences. 13. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 28.02.2011 and that of Appellate Court dated 22.11.2011 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him by extending him the benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. 15. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not 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. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash