Chattisgarh High Court
Madhav Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 460 of 2014
Madhav Prasad son of Heeradhar Prasad Khadiya, aged about 30 years,
resident of Kodtarai, Police Station- Bhupdeopur, Civil and Revenue District
- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station-
Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Non-Applicant/State
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Anil Tripathi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
30.01.2023
1.
The applicant has filed the instant criminal revision under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 25.06.2014 passed
by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal
No. 56/2012 whereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 11.09.2012 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Case. No. 61/2011
wherein the applicant has been convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 452 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
one year & fine of Rs.200/-, in default additional R.I. for one month and
under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year &
fine of Rs.200/-, in default additional R.I. for one month. It is also directed
that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.01.2011 when
complainant/prosecutrix was changing her clothes, the present applicant
entered into her house and tried to pull her saree. When she made hue and
cry, her father came there and the present applicant fled away from the spot.
F.I.R. was lodged on 28.01.2011 and consequently the police registered the
offences punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of the IPC against the
present applicant. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses and
after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offence
punishable under Sections 452 & 354 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution examined 05 witnesses and exhibited 04 documents to
bring home the offence committed by applicant. Statement of the applicant
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the learned trial Court in
which he took the plea of false implication. The trial Court after appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant for the offence
under aforementioned sections.
4. PW-1 prosecutrix/complainant has stated that on the date of incident, when
she was alone in her house, the present applicant entered into her house
and tried to pull her saree. When she made hue and cry, her father came
there and thereafter, the present applicant fled away from the spot. She has
further stated that the report was lodged vide Ex.-P/1. In examination-in-
chief, she has further stated that why the applicant was pulling her saree,
she does not know. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. Leading
questions were put to the complainant, in para-2 she has clarified that the
applicant was pulling her saree to outrage her modesty. In cross-
examination, there is nothing substantial against the applicant.
5. PW-2 is husband of the prosecutrix who is a hearsay witness. PW-3 is father
of the prosecutrix. He has stated that when he reached to the spot, he saw
the present applicant running towards the back side of his house. PW-4 and
PW-5 are the police officials who conducted the investigation.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in examination-in-chief,
the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution. There is delay
of 03 days in registering the F.I.R. which has not been explained
satisfactorily. His next contention is that the incident had taken place in the
year 2011 and the applicant has already suffered 23 days in judicial custody.
He would pray for acquittal of the present applicant.
7. On other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that prosecution
has proved the ingredients of Section 354 of the IPC against the applicant.
He would further submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by the two
courts below, therefore, the criminal revision preferred by the applicant
deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with
utmost circumspection.
9. From record, it appears that on 25.01.2011 while the prosecutrix was alone
in her house, the applicant entered there and tried to pull her saree and
when she raised hue and cry, her father came on spot and the present
applicant fled away. In examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that
she was not aware of the fact that why the present applicant was pulling her
saree. Though, she has clarified in the cross-examination that with intention
to outrage her modesty, that was being done by him, but the prosecution has
not explained the delay of 03 days which is caused in registration of F.I.R..
On 28.01.2011 the F.I.R. was lodged and there is no justification by the
prosecution in this regard.
10. Considering the fact that there is delay of 03 days in registering the F.I.R.,
further considering the shaky evidence of the prosecutrix and the applicant
has remained in jail for 23 days, I am of the opinion that present applicant
can be given benefit of doubt. By extending benefit of doubt, the applicant is
acquitted of charges under Sections 452 and 354 of the IPC.
11. The applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, no further order to set him
free etc is necessary. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six
months from today in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,
however, the fine amount imposed upon the applicant with default stipulation
by the trial Court shall remain intact.
12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
