Chattisgarh High Court
Raj Dahariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.03.12
11:52:03
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 248 of 2016
• Raj Dahariya, S/o - Abheyram Dahariya, aged about 22 Years, R/o
Village Kanakot, P.S. Palari, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
...Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Baloda Bazar,
District - Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh.
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
11/03/2025
1. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397
read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 31.12.2015
passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar, C.G., in
Criminal Appeal No.83/2015, whereby the learned Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 19.10.2015
passed in Criminal Case No.742/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Baloda-Bazar, C.G, convicting the applicant under Section 354
of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment
for one month.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.07.2014 at about
5:30 pm, complainant/victim along with her sister-in-law/PW-2 had
gone to attend nature's call near pond and while they were returning,
at that time, present applicant along with two other persons, with an
intention to outrage her modesty, stopped her and caught hold of her
right hand and when she started shouting and tried to assault him with
slipper, he fled away from there. After that, her sister-in-law/PW-2 and
village people caught the two persons present along with the applicant
and on being asked, they told the name of applicant as Raj Dehariya.
Thereafter, on the report of victim, FIR (Ex.P-1) has been registered
against the applicant. During investigation, spot map was prepared
vide Ex.P-2 and the statements of the witnesses were recorded.
Accused / applicant was arrested vide Ex.P-3.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against
the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Baloda-Bazar, C.G. The accused / applicant abjured his guilt and
prayed for trial.
4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the Court of learned JMFC and the Appellate Court, convicted
and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this
judgment. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court of JMFC as
well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence
available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the
applicant for the aforesaid offence. He further submits that there is no
cogent and clinching evidence on record to suggest that applicant is
the author of the crime in question. He also submits that PW-2 sister-
in-law of the victim has also not supported the prosecution case and
there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of
the victim and other prosecution witnesses. He also submits no test
identification parade was conducted by the prosecution to identify the
accused. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant
that applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled against him.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the
impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as
Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant
and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting
interference by this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Victim/complainant (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that on the
date of incident, she along with her sister-in-law/PW-2 had gone to
attend nature's call near pond and while they were returning, at that
time, present applicant along with other two persons, stopped her and
caught hold of her right hand and when she started shouting and tried
to assault him with slipper, he fled away from there. After that, her
sister-in-law/PW-2 and village people caught the two persons who
were present with the applicant and on being asked, they told the
name of applicant as Raj Dahariya. This witness was subjected to
cross-examination and in cross-examination, she admitted that before
the incident, she did not know the applicant. She further admitted that
the police did not conduct any test identification parade through her.
Further, PW-2 sister-in-law of the victim has stated that she does not
recognize the applicant and for the first time, she saw the applicant in
Court. She has also that as she did not see the applicant properly,
therefore, she could not recognize the face of the applicant.
Furthermore, PW-3 husband of the victim also admitted in his cross-
examination that he did not find any injury over the person of the
victim nor her bangles were broken. Besides above, PW-4 Hemant
Kumar also admitted that he does not know anything about the
incident and only on the basis of information received from village
people, he told about the incident. Moreover, PW-6 Lekhram also
admitted that he was at his home at the time of incident. Apart from
this, PW-6 Devnath Janghel, ASI, also admitted in his cross-
examination that at the time of incident, he only recorded the
statement of PW-2 sister-in-law of victim. He further admitted that the
persons, namely Narottam Kumar and Sukhdev Banjare, have
disclosed the name of the applicant as Raj Dehariya to victim. He also
admitted that he has not conducted any test identification parade
through victim nor sent her for medial examination.
9. From perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are
material inconsistencies in the statements of victim/complainant and
other prosecution witnesses and their evidence do not corroborate
with each other. Apart from this, victim and PW-6 Devnath Janghel,
ASI have admitted that no test identification parade was conducted to
identify the accused. Moreover, PW-6 Devnath Janghel, ASI, also
admitted that Narottam Kumar and Sukhdev Banjare have disclosed
the name of the applicant as Raj Dehariya to victim, but they have not
been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it.
Further, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show
the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question. In that view of
the matter, 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. The
learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court were totally unjustified in
convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the
Court of JMFC dated 19.10.2015 and that of Appellate Court dated
31.12.2015 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant
is acquitted of the charge under Section 354 of IPC by extending him
the benefit of doubt.
11. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Akhilesh
