Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Balodabazar, Dist
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.08.22 17:29:45 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 889 of 2016 Manharan S/o Shyamsunder Satnami, aged about 40 years, R/o Village - Tundri, Thana - Bilaigarh District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Balodabazar, District (Revenue and Civil) - Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant :
Legal Reasoning
11. Upon careful consideration of the statements on record, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties originated from monetary issues. When the applicant was released on bail under Section 151 of Cr.PC, the husband of the victim instructed her to lodge a report against the applicant. It further emerges that the relationship between the applicant, Manharan, and the victim’s husband, Rajkumar (PW-2), was not cordial. The statement of the victim reveals that no complaint or report was lodged against the applicant for a period of one year prior. It was only subsequent to the applicant’s release on bail that the victim and her husband, Rajkumar (PW-2) lodged Page 6 of 6 the report in question. Crucially, there are material contradictions & omissions in the statements of the witnesses and the evidence on record fails to establish the applicant’s complicity in the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not produced any cogent or clinching evidence to substantiate the charges against the applicant. In light of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 23.12.2014 and that of Appellate Court dated 03.09.2016 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 354 and 509 of IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt. 13.
Arguments
Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 19.08 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 03.09.2016 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Page 2 of 6 Balodabazar (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2015, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant was partly allowed. The learned appellate Court, while affirming the conviction of the applicant under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, has modified the sentence by reducing the rigorous imprisonment awarded under Section 354 of IPC from one year to six months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and by converting the sentence under Section 509 of IPC from rigorous imprisonment for six months to simple imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 300/-. The default sentences have been maintained. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at Police Station: Bilaigarh (C.G.) on 30.01.2014 alleging that after her marriage, she was residing in the house of her elder brother-in-law (Jeth)/accused. She stated that four days after her marriage, accused caught hold of her hand. It was further alleged that on 27.01.2014 at about 08:00 pm, accused knocked the door of her house and told her that he loves her, but the victim did not opened the door and the accused left from there. Based on the said report lodged on 30.01.2014, offences under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaigarh, District: Balodabazar (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non- guilty. 4. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 23.12.2014, convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of Page 3 of 6 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 354 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 509 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the applicant was directed to further undergo additional imprisonment of 15 days and 7 days, respectively. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant by way of Criminal Appeal. The learned Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 03.09.2016, partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence, as detailed in Paragraph 1 of this petition. Hence, this present revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused submits that the FIR in the present case was lodged after a delay of three days from the alleged incident. Further, no complaint was preferred by the victim regarding the incident, which is stated to have occurred more than one year prior to the lodging of the FIR. It is also submitted that the statement of the victim (PW- 1) does not disclose any occurrence involving the applicant on 27.01.2014, the date alleged in the complaint. It is relevant to mention that the applicant is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the victim, and the victim along with her husband was residing in the house of the applicant at the relevant time. There was some quarrel between the husband of the victim and the applicant. After the applicant-accused was released on bail under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim along with her husband lodged a false report against the applicant, which is clearly reflected in the statement of PW-1. Moreover, there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the victim and other prosecution witnesses, which cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s version of the events. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the applicant is entitled to acquittal. Page 4 of 6 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the impugned judgment warrants no interference. It is contended that both the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court have duly convicted and sentenced the applicant after due appreciation of the evidence on record and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment that calls for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. PW-4 G.R. Kurre, Assistant Sub-Inspector, deposed that the victim lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) on 30.01.2014. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the FIR was not lodged immediately after the alleged offence. He further admitted that the alleged offence is stated to have occurred about one year prior to the lodging of the FIR. Upon inquiry in the village regarding the incident, he found that no one had made any statements concerning the occurrence. He also admitted that the complainant had not lodged any prior report against the accused/applicant. 9. The victim, PW-1, deposed that the incident in question occurred in the previous year. At that time, she was in her room when the applicant entered and attempted to outrage her modesty. She stated that she pushed the applicant away, and fled away from the village, but the said fact is not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/1). During cross-examination, PW-1 acknowledged that the report was filed against the applicant-accused after he had misbehaved with her while under the influence of alcohol. PW-1 also candidly stated that when the applicant was released on bail under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), her husband contacted the SDOP and prompted her to lodge another complaint against Page 5 of 6 the applicant on similar grounds of outraging her modesty which was not corroborated from the contents of FIR (Ex.P/1). Additionally, PW-1 admitted that she did not lodge any complaint when the applicant allegedly caught hold of her hand 1 year prior to the date of incident. She also revealed that the report was lodged due to a previous enmity arising from a family dispute between her husband and the applicant. She conceded that she was instructed by her husband to file the complaint and that her testimony in court was given under his guidance. 10. PW-3 Ramniwas, who is the father-in-law of the victim, in his cross- examination, admitted that the victim and her husband were residing in the house of the applicant/accused. He further admitted that all the expenses related to the marriage of the victim and her husband were borne by the applicant/accused. This witness further admitted that there was a monetary dispute between the applicant/accused and the victim’s husband, due to which, relations between them were strained and communication between the two had ceased. He has categorically admitted that after the applicant/accused was released on bail, it was then that the husband of the victim lodged a report against the applicant.
Decision
In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Sd/- Saurabh (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE