1 CGHC010179282026 2026:CGHC:40602 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 624 of 2026 1 - Harekrishna Das @ Haridas S/o Late Devendra Das Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Beside Rajkumar Cycle Stores, Mana Colony, P.S.- Mana Camp, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The District Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 17/09/2026 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (henceforth, “the BNSS”), challenging the order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned 12th Upper Sessions Judge, Raipur (henceforth, “the Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.208/2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant has been rejected upholding the judgment of conviction order RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.09.22 10:28:48 +0530 2 of sentence dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (henceforth referred as, “Trial Court) in Criminal Case No.2853/2016, whereby the learned trial Court, after holding the applicant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner : - Sl. No. Conviction u/S Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default Stipulation 01. 354, IPC R.I. for 1 year Rs.500/- S.I. for 1 month 02. 323, IPC (twice) -- Rs.500-500/- S.I. for 1-1 month 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.12.2025, the applicant called the prosecutrix for a dance programme. The prosecutrix, along with her friend, went to Mana Basti, where they met the applicant. The applicant thereafter took them to Bhojli Resort, where his two friends, namely Anil Jain and Champu Sahu, were already present. As there was no dance programme at the resort, the prosecutrix decided to return to her house. At that time, the applicant, along with his two friends, caught hold of her hand and dragged her towards a room. When the prosecutrix tried to free herself, the accused persons assaulted her with their hands and fists. Hearing her screams, her friend also tried intervened, but the three accused persons assaulted her as well. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and her friend somehow managed to escape and returned home, where she narrated the incident to her family members. Subsequently, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323/34 IPC against the applicant and the other co-accused persons. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. 3 3. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the applicant and other co- accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323/34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them, to which they denied the allegations and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. After considering the evidence available on record and and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant/accused Harekṛishna Das preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record and submissions of the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, this criminal revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no independent witness to support the case of victim and her friend. He further submits that there are contradictions in the depositions of both the witnesses with regard to the place of incident. Despite that, the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court convicted the applicant on the basis of such unreliable evidence. Hence, he prays that the present revision be allowed and the applicant be acquitted of the said charges. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, which are based on the evidence of 4 injured eye witness as well as other independent witness (PW-3). Hence, the instant revision deserves to be rejected. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. PW-1 is the victim, who had gone along with her friend (PW-3) after being called by the applicant to perform in a cultural programme at the said resort. The victim (PW-1) has categorically stated in her deposition that when she, along with her friend (PW-3), reached at the said resort, the applicant and the other co-accused persons, namely, Anil Jain and Champu Sahu, who had consumed liquor, instigated them to do a wrong act. She has further stated that the applicant and other co-accused persons caught hold of her and pulled her inside the room of the resort, and when her friend (PW-3) intervened, the applicant Harekrishna Das @ Haridas caught hold of her hair and assaulted her. Aforesaid deposition of victim (PW-1) has also been supported by her friend (PW-3). 11.Though, as per depositions of PW-1 and PW-3, they are friends, their statements regarding the molestation of the victim by the applicant with an ill intention cannot be discarded merely on that ground. Even otherwise, on the next date of incident, i.e., 10.12.2015, Dr. GC Sarkar (PW-4) medically examined the victim (PW-1), in which, he found swelling and abrasions over her cheeks and neck. Thus, depositions of PW-1 and PW-3 also get support from the deposition of Dr. GC Sarkar (PW-4). 12. Though there is some difference between depositions of victim (PW-1) and her friend (PW-3) with regard to the name of the resort, but only on this count, their entire deposition which remained uncontroverted in cross- examination, cannot be discarded, as a person may sometimes get confused about the name of a place. 5 13. On due consideration of the evidence available on record, concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below convicting the applicant - Harekrishna Das @ Haridas for the offences under Sections 354 & 323 IPC for molesting and assaulting the victim/prosecutrix (PW-1) and causing simple injuries to her, do not call for any interference by this Court. 14. Consequently, the present criminal revision is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are hereby upheld. 15. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar