Chattisgarh High Court
Vivek Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2025
1
CRA No. 439 of 2016
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
SHARMA
JYOTI
SHARMA
Date:
2025:CGHC:35529
2025.07.26
12:34:26
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 439 of 2016
Vivek Singh S/o P.S. Rajput Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Gondgiri,
Thana Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh Address Of Appellant
Mentioned In Certified Copy Of Judgement Whereas As Correct
Address Is R/o Ward No. 16, Parshuram Ward, Village Singhouri, City
Kotwali Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara, District
Bemetara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
23/07/2025
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 11.03.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 23/2015 by the
learned upper Sessions Judge, Bemetara C.G. whereby the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 354 (C) of the IPC R. I. for one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo RI for 1 month.
U/s 354 (d) of I.P.C. R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.
500/- in default of payment of
fine amount additional R.I. for
one month
U/S 12 & 14 (10 of R.I. for 1-1 year and fine of Rs.
Protection of Children 500-500/- in default of payment
from Sexual Offences of fine amount additional R.I. for
Act, 2012 1-1 month
U/s 67 of I.T Act R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.
5000/- in default of payment of
fine amount additional S.I. for 3
months.
(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently)
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that a report was lodged on
24.09.2014 that both appellant and prosecutrix are neighbour and
since last four years, the appellant used to follow her and took
porn photograph of the prosecutrix in his mobile phone and
circulate to others.
3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Subsequently, after
completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted
before the Court. 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.
4. 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.
5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence
available on record, by its judgment dated 11.03.2016 convicted
and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of
this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has
falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been
convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record.
He would submit that there is no evidence that obscene images of
the prosecutrix was taken and forwarded by the present appellant.
He also submits that there is no evidence to prove that the seized
mobile phone belongs to the appellant and therefore prays that
the present appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of
the charges.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the
submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the
appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference.
8. 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.
9. The question for consideration is whether the accused took
pictures of the accused in a situation of privacy where she was
not likely to be seen by anyone else and circulated them in
electronic media to another person's mobile phone?
10. PW-1 namely Mamta Mishra stated in her examination in chief
that she knew the prosecutrix and on 22.09.2014, she saw the
nude picture of her in the mobile phone of her husband and told
the mother of the prosecutrix and thereafter they lodged the
report. He further stated that the mobile phone was seized.
Further in her cross examination she has stated that she
don't use mobile phone and does not have the knowledge that if
something is send to the mobile phone, the sender is known. She
further stated that she and her husband are not educated and do
not know who sent the pictures. She also stated that she don't
know in whose name the seized mobile phone is and in whose
name the SIM card was issued. She however has stated that the
mobile phone is used by her husband.
11. PW-3 namely Surendra Pandey stated in his examination in chief
that he knew the appellant and the father of the appellant is his
friend. He further stated that he has seen the appellant harassing
the prosecutrix at Bemetara and he used to follow her around. He
further stated that but he do not know who made the dirty picture
and obscene video of the prosecutrix.
12. PW-5 mother of the prosecutrix stated in her statement that on
22.09.2014 when her daughter returned from coaching, her friend
Riya Chhabra told her that her obscene video clipping has come
in mobile phone. She further stated that after a while, her sister-in-
law Mamta Mishra came to her house and said that her
daughter's obscene video has come in her husband's mobile
phone. She further stated that when she saw the video, the voice
of the accused was in the video.
She further in her cross examination stated that she has not
seen the accused filming the video and no photo of accused in the
video. However, she stated that the voice of the accused is clearly
audible in the video.
13. PW-6 prosecutrix stated in her examination-in-chief that her
friend Riya Chhabra told her about the video and thereafter she
went home and told her mother about the video. She further
stated that at the same time her aunt also came and told her
mother about the video and showed her the video in the mobile
phone. She further stated that for last 4 year the accused used to
follow her and used to tell her that if she will not talk to her he will
make obscene video of her.
14. PW- 9 namely Rajesh Mishra stated that she knew the accused
and the prosecutrix. He further stated that on 22.09.2014 when
he returned from night duty and checked his mobile phone he saw
an obscene video in his phone and the video was of the
prosecutrix. He further stated that in the video the voice of
accused can be heard. He further stated that the mobile phone is
seized from him and the seizure memo is Ex.P-3.
15. PW-10 father of the prosecutrix stated that his relative namely
Mamta Mishra came to his house and told that obscene video of
her daughter has come in the mobile phone of her husband and
showed them the same. He further stated that in the video the
voice of the accused was clear. However he has not stated
anything about sender of the video.
16. Considering the entire evidence, I am of the view that the mobile
phone of the appellant is not seized which ought to be the main
evidence to examine whether the video was recorded by him or
not. Further, there is no eye witness or oral evidence to prove that
the video was recorded by the accused or transmitted by his
phone.
17. Further the seizure of mobile phone Article A1 is of the relative of
the prosecutrix and examination of the same does not show the
sender of the video and all other are circumstantial evidence.
18. It is well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence
the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution
and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get
the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact
a case of no evidence. Thus, the appellant is entitled for benefit
of doubt.
19. In a result, the appellant 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.
20. 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
Gowri/ Jyoti
