Durg, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, District D
Case Details
1 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.09 14:41:54 +0530 2025:CGHC:45311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1457 of 2019 S. Ramu S/o. Late S Subramanium, Aged About 65 Years R/o. Mig-1- 483, Hudco, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate with Shri Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board 04.09.2025 1. Heard. 2 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 2. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hence forth ‘the Cr.P.C.’) questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 34/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 02 months Under Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 02 months Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It is pertinent to note that, in the present case, prior to the framing of charges, accused Jagbandhu Jaina passed away on 17.12.2014. Consequently, by order dated 11.05.2015, he was declared deceased and the proceedings against him were abated. Further, accused Murli Reddy was acquitted by the
Legal Reasoning
Trial Court by extending him the benefit of doubt due to lack 3 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 of sufÏcient evidence. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, S. Ramu. 4. Brief facts of the case is that, the prosecutrix, aged about 18 years, was a player of the Chhattisgarh Senior Girls’ Kho-Kho Team and was residing along with other players at the Kho- Kho ofÏce near B.S.P. Ground, Bhilai, during a national training camp. It is alleged that accused S. Ramu, General Secretary, and Jagbandhu, Treasurer of the Chhattisgarh Kho- Kho Association, used to frequently indulge in obscene acts with the prosecutrix and her teammates. On 27.01.2014 at about 10:00 p.m., accused S. Ramu allegedly entered into the kitchen of the ofÏce, proposed sexual relations to the prosecutrix, forcibly caught hold her and pressed her chest, and thereafter also misbehaved with her companion. On the following day, he again attempted to outrage her modesty by catching her hand and asking her to remove her clothes. Around the same time, accused Jagbandhu allegedly showed obscene pictures on his mobile phone and made vulgar suggestions to her. It is further alleged that Murli Reddy, Coach of the Chhattisgarh Girls’ Kho-Kho Team, also misbehaved with the prosecutrix and other players by 4 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 catching their hands and making indecent remarks. Aggrieved by the continuous harassment and obscene acts of the accused persons, the prosecutrix, through her father, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Bhilai Bhatti. Based on the said complaint, Crime No. 19/2014 was registered against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 354- A, 354-B read with Section 34 IPC ,Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST Act, 1989 and investigation was set in motion. 5. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court, wherein the charge under Section 354-A, 354-B, 34 IPC & Section 10 of POCSO Act was framed. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case and the defence presented 2 witnesses from their side. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The learned trial Court after completing the trial, did not find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act and acquitted him. However, convicted and sentenced him for offence under Section as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this Judgment. 5 CRA No. 1457 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law as most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and their testimonies suffer from contradictions, vagueness, and lack of specific allegations against the appellant. It is submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in selectively relying upon inconsistent and unreliable statements, despite the fact that the case arose out of a single FIR lodged by multiple complainants, many of whom did not support the prosecution version. It is further contended that the conviction of the appellant, while acquitting the co- accused on the same set of facts and allegations, is unsustainable. The defence witnesses have categorically deposed that no complaint or information of sexual harassment was ever made, thereby rendering the prosecution story doubtful, and in such circumstances the appellant ought to have been acquitted. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that there are sufÏcient evidence available 6 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 on record to hold that the appellant was guilty of the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and gone through the evidence available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. Since, it is undisputed that the prosecutrix (PW-1) was a major on the date of incident, as before the trial Court the prosecution failed to establish the fact that on the date of incident she was below 18 years of age and hence the appellant has been acquitted from the said charge, the Court must now decide the central issue: whether the appellant is guilty of the alleged offence under Section 354 and Section 354 A of the IPC. 11. The prosecutrix (PW-1), deposed that she was a player of the Chhattisgarh Kho-Kho Team and was acquainted with accused S. Ramu and the acquitted accused Murli Reddy, who were 7 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 associated with the team as coach and ofÏce-bearer respectively. About 4–5 years prior to the incident, while she was staying with other girl players at the accommodation provided near Sector-4 Kho-Kho Ground, Bhilai, accused S. Ramu used to come to the kitchen where she was cooking and would call her aside, asking her to remove her clothes. He allegedly touched her body, including her hands, legs, chest, stomach, back and private parts, and further threatened that if she did not submit, he would not take her to participate in the national tournament. She stated that such indecent acts were committed by accused S. Ramu on a daily basis, and that similar conduct was also reported to her by her fellow players. She further stated that although the acquitted accused Murli Reddy had misbehaved with other girls, no indecent act was personally committed by him upon her. Being aggrieved by the repeated misbehavior, the girls informed and on their advice prepared a video recording when accused again misbehaved with her friend. That video was handed over to her friend, who in turn submitted it to the police. In her cross-examination, She admitted that she had not lodged an immediate complaint as there was no proof at the 8 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 initial stage, and clarified that only after preparing the video recording, the complaint made. She also admitted that in her statement to police, she had categorically stated that Murli Reddy had not misbehaved with her, the allegations of sexual harassment by accused S. Ramu in the present case remained consistent and unshaken in cross-examination. 12. PW-2, a player of the senior girls’ Kho-Kho team, deposed that during the year 2014 she, along with other selected girls, was staying at the B.S.P. Sector-4 Kho-Kho ground ofÏce at Bhilai for the national training camp. She stated that she was informed by the PW5 that accused had touched her inappropriately on her chest. She further deposed that prosecutrix (PW-1) had also disclosed to her that accused had misbehaved with her. This witness further stated that accused Jagbandhu (dead) used to show obscene photographs and videos to the prosecutrix. The witness further stated that on 27.01.2014, in the night at about 10:00 p.m., in the kitchen of the Kho-Kho ofÏce, accused had caught hold of victims (PW1) and PW5, proposed sexual relations with them, pressed the chest of PW-5 and also inserted his hand inside her clothes. She also stated that on the next day, i.e., 28.01.2014, accused 9 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 again caught hold of the prosecutrix when she was alone, which incident was narrated by her to them. According to the witness, similar misbehavior and obscene acts were repeatedly committed by the accused against the girls, due to which they were disturbed and ultimately a report was lodged. However, in her cross-examination she admitted that she could not state the exact date when the accused first misbehaved with her. She accepted that while accused misbehaved with PW-5, she did not raise alarm or cry for help. She further admitted that she had not personally witnessed the incident of misbehavior with the prosecutrix, except what was narrated to her. She also admitted that accused once touched her on the hip, which she personally experienced. 13. From the testimony of co-players PW-3 and PW-4, it is clear that they have not supported the prosecution case, except admitting that the accused persons used to visit the hostel after practice, to look after the food arrangements and to talk with the players. 10 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. 11 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more recise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 12 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 15. Also, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 SCC 550 held as under:- “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’) similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the 13 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” 16. Reverting to the facts of the present case, upon careful evaluation of the depositions of the material prosecution witnesses, it emerges that the consistent allegations of sexual harassment and indecent assault have been levelled against accused. PW-1 prosecutrix, in clear terms, stated that the accused used to call her alone in the kitchen, forcibly used to touch her chest, thighs, back and private parts, and also threatened her with exclusion from the national team if she 14 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 resisted. Her testimony, though subjected to lengthy cross- examination, remained unshaken and inspires confidence. PW-2 corroborated the version of PW-1 by stating that she herself saw accused touching the PW-5 inappropriately and further heard from PW-1 about similar misbehaviour with her. She also deposed that on 27.01.2014 accused, in the kitchen room, caught hold of PW-1 and PW-5, touched inappropriately and inserted his hands inside their clothes, and also made a proposal of sexual relations. She further stated that on 28.01.2014 the accused again caught hold of PW-5 when she was alone. PW-2 also admitted that accused had once touched her inappropriately on her hip. These statements lend corroboration to the consistent allegations of sexual misconduct by the accused. The testimony of PW-2 that she personally witnessed the accused misbehaving with PW-5 provides strong corroboration to the version of PW-1, and the video recording produced further strengthens the prosecution case. 17. The law is well settled that the prosecutrix is a Victim of, and not an accomplice in, a sex offence and there is no provision 15 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 in the Evidence Act requiring corroboration in material particulars of the evidence of the prosecutrix as is in the case of evidence of accomplice. (See: Ganga Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 7SCC 178) 18. Considering the entire evidence available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be safe for this Court to hold that the appellant has committed the crime against the Prosecutrix. 19. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is hereby upheld. 20. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining sentence. 21. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the 16 CRA No. 1457 of 2019 concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 22. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib