1 CGHC010324952016 2026:CGHC:41833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1532 of 2016 Jagannath Sahu S/o Tulsi Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Aamner, Police Station - Abhanpur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Abhanpur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Manish Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri R avi ndra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board 25/09/2026 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Raipur, in Special Sessions Case No. 48 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.26 16:56:21 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s. 451 of IPC R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine further R.I. for 01 month. U/s. 354 of IPC R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine further R.I. for 01 month. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.10.2014, at about 6:20 p.m., when the victim (PW-1) was cooking food inside her house, the appellant trespassed into her house and outraged her modesty by removing his clothes and touching her private parts. When she shouted for help, her aunt-in-law and grandmother-in-law came there, whereupon the appellant fled from the place of occurrence. On the same day, i.e., 26.10.2014, the victim lodged the FIR (Exhibit P-1), which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 456 and 354-A of the IPC. It was also alleged in the FIR that another accused, Raju Satnami, was standing outside her house to assist the present appellant. Accordingly, the FIR was registered against both the accused persons. The accused persons were arrested on 29.10.2014. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the CRPC were recorded. With regard to the social status of the victim, the Social Status Certificate (Article A-1) was seized vide seizure memo (Exhibit P-2). 3. After completion of the usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused Rajendra Barle for the offences 3 punishable under Sections 456, 354 and 354-A of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the “SC/ST Act”), before the learned trial Court. 4. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellant- Jagannath Sahu, for the offence under Sections 451, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act, whereas, the charge against the co- accused Rajendra Barle was framed under Sections 451 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of CRPC have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. The appellant Jagannath has further stated that he had advanced loan to the husband of the complainant for Rs. 25,000/- and when he demanded his money back, he was being falsely implicated by the victim. One defence witness has been examined by the accused persons in their defence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Rajendra Barle from all the offences, whereas, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 4 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which cannot form the basis for convicting the appellant for the offences in question. The evidence of the victim suffers from various inconsistencies and discrepancies. There is no independent witness, though the place of the alleged incident is surrounded by the houses of others, and except for the aunt-in-law of the victim, no other independent witness has been examined. He further submits that there was a monetary dispute between the husband of the victim and the appellant, as the appellant had advanced a loan to the husband of the victim, and, only to avoid repayment of the said loan, the appellant has been falsely implicated. In the same set of evidence, the co-accused, Rajendra Barle, has been acquitted, and the appellant has also been acquitted of the offence under the SC/ST Act. Therefore, by giving the benefit of doubt, the appellant may also be acquitted of the offences under Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Minor omissions or contradictions do not affect the reliability of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the alleged offences. The victim has duly supported the prosecution case, which has been corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, who is an eyewitness to the incident. A prompt 5 report was lodged by the victim, pursuant to which the FIR was registered and the appellant was arrested. Though the other co- accused, Rajendra Barle, has been acquitted, the allegation against Rajendra Barle was different from the allegation against the present appellant. The victim admitted in her evidence that Rajendra Barle was standing outside her house and did nothing. Therefore, he was acquitted of the lesser offence, whereas there is a consistent allegation against the present appellant that he trespassed into her house, outraged her modesty by removing his clothes and touching her private parts. Therefore, it is submitted that the ingredients of Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC are satisfied by the prosecution, and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, which calls for no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 10. PW-1 is the victim, who stated in her evidence that she knew the appellant, who was also a resident of the same vicinity. On the date of the incident, at about 6:00 p.m., she was cooking food in her house. At that time, the appellant, Jagannath, entered her house and asked about her husband. At that time, he was in an intoxicated condition. He removed his clothes and touched her. He touched her hand and breasts, which caused her annoyance, whereupon she started shouting. At that time, Raju Satnami also entered the house, who was also in an intoxicated condition. Upon hearing her cries, her aunt-in-law and grandmother-in-law came there. They also saw the appellant, Jagannath, in a naked condition inside her house. There 6 was no male member in the house at that time. When her aunt-in-law and grandmother-in-law scolded the appellant, he started abusing them and thereafter fled from the place. Her husband had gone to Raipur to attend a funeral. After about half an hour, they informed her husband about the incident over the mobile phone, and that very night, her husband returned. Thereafter, she lodged the report, which is Exhibit P-1. ******* In cross-examination, she firmly denied the suggestion that there was a monetary dispute between the appellant and her husband. In Para 12, she admitted that the relationship between her husband and the appellant was cordial and that both of them used to visit each other's houses. At the time when the appellant came to her house, her husband was not present, and when she shouted, her aunt-in-law and grandmother-in-law came there. She also stated that, at the time when the appellant came to her house, no other person was present outside her house. Since she was inside the house, she could not say who was present outside. She firmly denied the suggestion that the appellant had not committed any obscene act with her. In her cross-examination, the victim remained firm in stating that it was the appellant who trespassed into her house, removed his clothes and outraged her modesty. From the contents of the FIR, which was lodged on 26.10.2014 at 20:00 hours, no discrepancy is found between the FIR (Exhibit P-1) and her evidence before the Court. In the FIR also, she made a specific allegation that the appellant, Jagannath, entered her house, removed his clothes and outraged her modesty. When she shouted, her aunt-in-law and 7 grandmother-in-law came there, whereafter the appellant fled from the place. A similar version was given by the victim in her statement before the Court. 11. PW-2 is the aunt-in-law of the victim. She also stated that on the date of incident at about 6:30 p.m., when she was in her house, she heard the noise of the victim and when she along with her mother-in-law came out from their house, they saw that the appellant Jagannath coming out from the house of the victim in naked condition. The accused Raju was standing outside of her house. When they asked from the victim, she disclosed about the incident that the appellant Jagannath outraged her modesty. At that time, her husband was not there in the house and when he returned back, they disclosed him about the incident. On some point of her evidence, she declared hostile. When she was cross-examined by the defence, she firmly denied the suggestion given by the defence that there was any money dispute between them. PW-2, the aunt-in-law of the victim, has duly supported her case that they saw the appellant Jagannath coming out from the house of the victim in naked condition. 12. In these two evidences, the allegations levelled by the victim against the appellant Jagannath have been found duly proved that on the date of the incident, he trespassed the house of the victim and outraged her modesty. 13. The defence witness DW-1 has been examined by the appellant, who established that there was a money dispute between the appellant and the husband of the victim. However, in the cross-examination, he 8 admitted that he did not know as to whether the appellant has made any complaint against the husband of the victim with respect to employment or not. He admitted that in his presence there was no money transaction between the appellant and the husband of the victim. 14. From the evidence of the defence witness, it cannot be said that the appellant is able to raise a probable defence which makes the prosecution evidence doubtful or can extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Rather, the evidence of the victim and PW-2 her aunt- in-law duly corroborated with each other with that of FIR (exhibit P-1). Thus, the allegation of house trespass in order to commit offence under Section 451 of IPC and outraging the modesty of the victim and use criminal force has been duly proved by the prosecution. The trial court has rightly considered the evidence led by the prosecution while convicting the appellant. After having due consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution, I do not find any legality or perversity in the judgment passed by the trial Court and accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve the sentence as awarded by this Court. The appellant is directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court within a period of 04 weeks from today to serve the sentence imposed upon him by this Court, failing which the trial Court shall take him into custody for execution of the sentence. 9 16. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved