District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhuriya, Civil And Revenue Distric
Case Details
1 CRA No. 587 of 2016 2025:CGHC:43954 NAFR RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.19 17:08:17 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 857 of 2016 Chandrabhan @ Chandu S/o Sahdev Sinha Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Shikari Mahka, Thana Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhuriya, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 17/09/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2016 passed in Special Sessions case No. 74/2014 by the learned 2 CRA No. 587 of 2016 Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 354 (A) (1) (ii) (iv) Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and of IPC fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which R.I. for 1 month U/s 354 (D) of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which R.I. for 1 month U/s 8 of POCSO Act, Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and 2012 fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which R.I. for 1 month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently In the present trial, three accused persons, namely Chandrabhan @
Legal Reasoning
Chandu (the appellant herein), Sahadev Singh, and Phoolmat Bai, were tried. Upon conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, while the remaining two co-accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 2. 3. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a report was lodged by the prosecutrix alleging therein that on 27.10.2014 at about 08:30 a.m., near the main road leading to village Kirgahatola, the appellant used criminal force on the victim with intent to outrage her modesty by touching her breast. It was alleged that the appellant caught hold of the victim, touched her inappropriately, made physical contact, demanded sexual 3 CRA No. 587 of 2016 consent, uttered sexually explicit remarks, harassed and followed her, and further threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, thereby causing criminal intimidation with the intent to instill fear in her mind. 5. On the basis of the said report, an offence was registered at Police Station, Chhuriya and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused before this Court. 6. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. With regard to date of birth of the Victim, Dakhil Kharij register (Article-B) and marksheet of Class-10 (Article-A) was seized. Statement of the Victim and the Statements of witnesses were recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 7. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 8. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 9. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28.06.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 10.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been 4 CRA No. 587 of 2016 falsely implicated in the present case and has been made to face unwarranted prosecution. He would contend that, in fact, no such incident as alleged by the prosecution ever took place. This is fortified by the testimony of the victim’s friend, who was cited as a DW1, but did not support the prosecution version, thereby creating a serious dent in the case of the prosecution. It is urged that the evidence on record does not establish the occurrence of the alleged incident, much less the involvement of the appellant therein. In these circumstances, the conviction recorded against the appellant is wholly unsustainable in law, as it is based on unreliable and uncorroborated testimony and does not satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. There is clear evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 13. The question for consideration would be whether the appellant has tried to outrage the modesty of the victim ? 14. PW/1, the mother of the victim stated that her daughter had left home for school at about 8:30 a.m. and returned at about 4:30 p.m. in a 5 CRA No. 587 of 2016 frightened condition. Upon being questioned, she disclosed that while she was on her way to school, the accused misbehaved with her, caught hold of her hand and arm, and threatened her by saying that he would commit a wrongful act. She further stated that, as disclosed by her daughter, even prior to this incident the accused had misbehaved with her on several occasions while she was going to and returning from school and has also threatened her not to tell about the incident to her family. At para 6 of cross-examination this witness stated that her daughter (PW-2) used to go and return from school along with her friend DW-1. 15. PW-2 victim deposed that she knew the accused. The incident occurred in December 2014, when she was studying in Class XI at Bholapur High School. She stated that while she used to commute to and from school, accused often followed her. On the date of the incident, while she was returning from school, accused caught hold of her hand and arm, demanded her mobile number, and told her that he wanted to commit an immoral act with her. She further deposed that she abused him and warned that she would inform her family, upon which he left. She further in her cross examination has stated that the accused caught hold of her hands and arms and touched her breast. She further stated that the accused pressed her breast. This witness also at para 9 of cross- examination stated that she used to go and come from school with her friend DW-1. From perusal of the evidence of mother (PW1) of the Victim , it is manifest that after the incident, the Victim intimated about 6 CRA No. 587 of 2016 the same to her mother, however, she has not disclosed the fact that the accused has tried to touch her breast. Thus, there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of Victim (PW2). 16. PW-5 father of the victim deposed that he knows the accused. He further deposed that the victim is his daughter, who at the time of the incident was studying in Class XI at village Bholapur. He stated that the incident occurred on 27.10.2014 on that day, his daughter had gone from Shikarimahka to Bholapur for her studies. After returning from school, she informed him about the incident. She narrated that while she was on her way to school, accused had outraged her modesty by catching hold of her hand and touching her chest, after which she somehow freed herself and proceeded to school. Though in examination-in-chief this witness stated that the accused came to his house and abused them, however, in cross-examination at para 6 he denied this statement. 17. DW1, friend of the Victim in her deposition has stated that she knows the accused Chandrabhan @ Chandu Sahdev by name and face. She also knows the Victim by name and face. She deposed that the accused persons, the Victim and she herself are residents of village Shikarimaha. The witness further stated that she and the Victim studied together in the same class. Both of them used to go from Shikarimaha to Bholapur for their studies. They generally left for school at around 8:00 a.m. and returned home by 3:20 p.m. She also stated that besides them, two other students of their village used to go for studies. The witness deposed that she studied with the Victim up to Class XI in the year 2015. While the 7 CRA No. 587 of 2016 Victim failed in that class, the witness continued her studies in Class XII. The witness categorically stated that during the period when she used to go to and return from school with the Victim, no such incident, as alleged, ever took place with the Victim to her knowledge. According to the witness, the Victim usually used to accompany her to school. 18. DW2- Teacher of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bholapur has stated that he is posted as a Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Bholapur since July 2012 and continues to be so till 02.06.2016. On this day, he appeared before the Court along with the original attendance register of Class XI of the said school. He further deposed that on 27.10.2014, the victim whose name is recorded at Serial No. 32 in the attendance register, was present in the class. Similarly, on the same date, the student (DW1), whose name is recorded at Serial No. 40 in the attendance register, was also present in the class on the date of alleged incident. The copy of the attendance register was verified with the original and found correct. The copy was accordingly marked as Exhibit D-4, and the original attendance register was returned to the witness. Thus, it is evident that on the date of incident also the victim and DW-1 went to school together. 19. Apart from that, PW-1, the mother of the victim, deposed that her daughter had left for school at about 8:30 a.m. and returned home at about 4:30 p.m., when she allegedly narrated the incident. However, the version of PW-2, the victim herself, is inconsistent on material particulars. She has stated at one stage that the incident occurred while 8 CRA No. 587 of 2016 returning from school, whereas PW-1, her mother, deposed that the incident occurred while she was on her way to school. This contradiction in the very genesis of the occurrence weakens the reliability of the prosecution case. 20. Further, PW-2 in her chief examination confined herself to the allegation that the accused caught hold of her hand and demanded her mobile number, but in cross-examination she made material improvements by alleging that the accused also touched and pressed her breast. Such embellishments cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of her version. Though the victim stated in her police statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the accused touched her breast with his hands, in her deposition before the Court she has not reiterated this allegation. 21. It is further noteworthy that no prompt report was lodged on the very day of the alleged incident. The unexplained delay in reporting not only diminishes the spontaneity of the victim’s version but also raises a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the allegations. In cases of this nature, prompt reporting assumes significance, and the absence thereof materially weakens the prosecution case. 22. The defence evidence, on the other hand, directly falsifies the prosecution story. DW-1, the classmate and close companion of the victim, categorically deposed that she and the victim used to travel together daily from Shikarimaha to Bholapur for their studies. On the relevant date also, they had travelled together, and at no point of time did any such incident occur with the victim in her presence. This testimony 9 CRA No. 587 of 2016 of DW-1, who was a natural witness to accompany the victim, completely undermines the allegations. 23. DW-2, the Teacher of the Government Higher Secondary School, Bholapur, has further fortified the defence by producing the original attendance register of Class XI. The said register shows that on 27.10.2014, the victim was duly present in the school, as was DW-1. The register was verified with the original, found correct, and marked as Exhibit D-4. This documentary evidence conclusively demonstrates that on the very date of the alleged incident, the victim was in school during the relevant hours, leaving no scope for the occurrence of the incident as alleged by her. 24. Thus, the testimony of the victim is not corroborated by any independent evidence and rather stands contradicted by her own friend (DW-1) and the contemporaneous school record (Exhibit D-4). When the victim’s version itself appears unreliable, embellished, and contradicted by unimpeachable defence evidence, it would be unsafe to base a conviction on her sole testimony. 25. Upon considering the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim as well as her mother, which do not inspire confidence. 26. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence, it becomes clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The testimony of the victim is inconsistent and not trustworthy. Her own friend (DW-1), who accompanied her daily, has categorically denied that any such incident 10 CRA No. 587 of 2016 ever happened. The school teacher (DW-2) has produced the original attendance register, which shows that on the very date of the alleged incident, the victim was present in school along with her friend. This documentary evidence completely rules out the possibility of the occurrence as alleged. 27. The appellant Chandrabhan has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C that he is innocent, the Victim (PW2) was calling him on mobile repeatedly and when this fact came to the knowledge of his mother, they went to the house of the Victim and for the said reason, the false report has been lodged against the appellant. From the stand taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., if is read along with the entire evidence available on record, it appears to be a case of false implication. 28. The allegation of stalking punishable under Section 354D IPC also does not stand established. The prosecution has failed to produce reliable and cogent evidence to show that the accused followed or attempted to contact the victim repeatedly despite her disinterest. On the contrary, the evidence of DW-1, who a used to accompany the victim regularly, categorically rules out the occurrence of any such incident. The attendance record produced by DW-2 further corroborates this position. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence of stalking are not fulfilled, and the accused is entitled to acquittal of the charge under Section 354D IPC. 29. In view of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C about 11 CRA No. 587 of 2016 false implication, the contradictory statement of the Victim (PW2) as well as her mother (PW1) and the statements of DW1 & DW2, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Sections 354 (A) (1) (ii) (iv) & 354 (D) of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused and it is a clear case of false implication of the accused.
Decision
30. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him extending the benefit of doubt. He is reported to be on bail. The bail bond is not discharged at this stage and the bond shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 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. 31. 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. Rahul/Gowri Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge