Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 CRA No. 01 of 2016 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.11 15:53:05 +0530 2025:CGHC:22718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1 of 2016 1 - Jayram Yadav S/o Fatturam Yadav Aged About 24 Years Occupation - Agricultural, Labour, R/o Village Kamreed, P.S. Saragaon, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh .... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
1. Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Order on Board 09/06/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2015 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, District Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.247/2014, whereby the trial Court has convicted the 2 CRA No. 01 of 2016 appellant under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for two months. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the victim lodged a report against the appellant that when on 17.08.2014 at about 4 PM she went to borewell for fetching the water at that time the appellant came there and started talking with her. Subsequently, when the victim proceeded towards her house alongwith the buckets which are filled with water, the appellant followed her and on the way he caught hold of her waist and pressed her body and also touched her breast. When the victim objected the act of the appellant he said that he slipped on the cow dung (Gobar). The victim alleged that despite knowing the fact that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe lady, the appellant committed the offence. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the concerned police has registered an offence against the appellant and after due investigation, filed a charge sheet under section 354 (a) (2) of I.P.C. and section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The trial Court has framed the charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offences and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. 6. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court 3 CRA No. 01 of 2016 has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC as stated supra, however, he has been acquitted from the charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, 1989. Thus, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court also not appreciated the material irregularities and convicted the appellant. According to the learned counsel only to harass the appellant the false case has been foisted against him. Learned counsel would submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the 164 and in the Court statement of the victim. She would submit that the villagers, who allegedly reached the place of incident, have not been examined. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission of the appellant and would submit that after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. 9. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned including the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. The victim has been examined as PW-2. In the cross-examination at para 7 this witness stated that when the appellant caught hold of her, she abused him and at that time some of the villagers reached there. She also deposed that the accused/appellant had told that due to cow dung on the road, he had slipped 4 CRA No. 01 of 2016 over her. 11. Further, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, this witness has stated that when she raised alarm on the act of the appellant, one Maharaj came to the place of incident and scolded the appellant. In the said statement, she also stated that there was no cow dung present on the spot. 12. Bare perusal of the above statements of the Victim, it is quite vivid that there are material contradictions and omissions in the 164 statment and in her Court statement because in the Court statement this witness has stated that many people gathered there when she made alarm and cow dung was present on the spot, but in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, she has never stated that cow dung was present on the spot and many people gathered there, rather it reflects that one Maharaj came to the place of incident according to the statement of 164 of the Cr.P.C. 13. Further, the Victim has stated in her cross-examination that she did not know the persons who were present on the spot. Such type of act of the Victim does not inspire confidence over the credibility of the statement of the Victim.The victim has offered contradictory Court statement than of 164 of the Cr.P.C. Apart from this, the prosecution has not brought on any other witness who was present on the spot to support the statement of the Victim. 14. Upon considering the entire evidence available on record, this Court found that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the Victim, which does not inspire confidence over the credibility of her statement because she had given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C contradictory to her 5 CRA No. 01 of 2016 statement given before the trial Court, which in the opinion of this Court, seems unreliable. 15. It is the trite law that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the committal court or even to contradict the same. The Supreme Court in the matter of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala1 has held as under:- “27. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is twofold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement; and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164, his evidence in court should be discarded, is not at all warranted. 28. Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the committal Court or even to contradict the same. As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence. ”
Decision
16. For the foregoing reasons, the accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed. 1 (2013) 14 SCC 266 6 CRA No. 01 of 2016 17. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar/ Rahul