1 CGHC010002802011 2026:CGHC:41742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 597 of 2011 Judgment Reserved On : 22/09/2026 Judgment Delivered On : 25/09/2026 Ambikesh Kumar Tiwari @ Sonu, S/o Shri Budhsen Prasad Tiwari, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Dagdauwa, Police Station Mangawa, District Rewa (MP), Present R/o Raipur Alloys Steel Factory, Security Guard, Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Miss Jyoti Kaushik appears on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Puriya, PL. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Sudhir Kumar, J C A V Judgment 1. The appellant stands convicted for committing offence under Section 354 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.09.26 11:29:20 +0530 2 RI for 2 months, vide judgment dated 26th July 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Raipur in Special ST No.9/2010. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 26.01.2009, the victim lodged a report with the Police Station Dharseewa stating that she had been residing with her husband in a rented house at Mandhar for about 3–4 months. Her husband was working as a guard. On 25.01.2009, at about 7:30 p.m., her husband went for duty. At about 7:45 p.m., she was returning towards her house after fetching water from the boring situated in the lane near her house, carrying a bucket on her head. At that time, the appellant, who was performing guard duty along with her husband, came from behind and with bad intention started touching and holding her hands and chest. When she objected, he pulled and tore her blouse. While trying to free herself, the bangle was broken, and the appellant struck her with his elbow, causing pain near her abdomen. When she pushed him, the appellant fled from the spot. Due to fear, she did not disclose the incident to anyone. On 25.01.2009, when her husband returned at about 9:00 p.m., she narrated the incident to him. She also informed her brother Ramdas over the telephone. Thereafter, after discussing the matter with her family, she came to lodge the report on the following day. 3. On the basis of the said information, the police registered the offence and conducted investigation. The victim was medically examined. The articles relevant to the evidence were seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. Upon completion of the 3 investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, which was subsequently assigned to the concerned Court for trial. 4. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, apart from the admitted facts, the accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated and that he was innocent. However, no defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused in support of his defence. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 8 (eight) witnesses. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the statements of witnesses. It was further argued that there is material contradiction in the statement of the victim in cross-examination and, therefore, on this score, the Appeal preferred by the appellant may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State argued that the trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of statement of the victim. The judgment of the trial Court is proper and the same is in accordance with law, and therefore, no interference is required therein. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. In her examination-in-chief, the victim (PW-3) has stated that when she was returning after fetching water from near the temple, at that time, the accused came from behind and after catching hold of her, tore her blouse. The victim has further stated that the accused had also caught hold of her hand, due to which the bangle on her hand was broken. On being declared hostile by the prosecution, she has further stated that the accused came from behind and with an improper intention, caught hold of her hand and chest. 9. In her cross-examination, the victim has admitted that she was seeing the accused present in the Court for the first time. Prior to that, she had never seen the accused. This witness has further admitted in her cross- examination that the accused had neither assaulted nor molested her. The testimony of the victim has been completely contradicted in cross- examination on the point of the accused having committed the alleged offence with her. 10. PW-4 has stated that he was informed about the incident by his wife. This witness is not an eyewitness to the incident, as he came to know about the incident through the victim. 11. PW-6 has stated that his brother-in-law had informed him over the phone that his sister had been raped. He had enquired about the incident from his sister, who told him that the accused had raped her. This witness is not an eyewitness to the incident. However, he was 5 informed about the incident by the victim. A careful perusal of the above evidence would show that on the one hand, the victim is alleging that she has been raped whereas on the other hand, allegation of molestation has been levelled against the present appellant. 12. On close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it appears that in the present case, there is material contradiction in the evidence of the victim on the point of the incident. Furthermore, the other witnesses are not eyewitness to the incident, as they deposed before the Court regarding the incident differently than what was deposed by the victim before the Court. As such, the statement of the victim and the statements of other witnesses are also contradictory to each other. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the charge against the accused/appellant has not been proved by the prosecution by cogent and reliable evidence. 14. For the foregoing, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court under Section 354 of the IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender. 15. Record of the trial Court be returned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Barve