Advocates:
['JK GUPTA', '', 'D N PRAJAPATI', 'MOHD TARIQ HAIDER', 'A G']

1

AFR

Order reserved on 16.6.2022

Order delivered on 13/10/2022

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRR No. 89 of 2011

• Devendra Kumar @ Ballu, S/o Ramji Sen, aged about 31

years, R/o Kurud, P.S. Jamul, District Durg (CG)

---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through PS Jamul District Durg (CG)

---- Respondent

For Applicant

:

Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate

For Respondent :

Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. Advocate General

SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

CAV Order

1. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the judgment dated

3.2.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg

in Criminal Appeal No.52/10 thereby dismissing appeal and

affirming the judgment dated 15.6.2010 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate 1^st Class, Durg in Criminal Case No.2/2009

convicting applicant under Sections 454 & 354 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentencing him to

undergo RI for 01 year with fine of Rs.500/-, in default to

undergo additional RI for 02 months; RI for 6 months with fine

of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 2 months

respectively.

2

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18.10.2001 at about

7:10 a.m. applicant along with co-accused Santosh Pandey

entered into house of complainant, Santosh Pandey closed

the doors from inside; applicant caught hold forearm of

complainant with intent to outrage her modesty. Complainant

somehow managed to come out from clutches of accused

persons and came out of house, whereupon accused persons

fled from spot. Complainant narrated the incident to her

neighbourers as also village Kotwar Dayabai (PW-4), went to

police station and lodged report, based upon which FIR was

registered against applicant and co-accused Santosh Pandey

for commission of offence punishable under Section 448 &

354 read with Section 34 of IPC. On completion of

investigation, police filed charge sheet against applicant and

co-accused Santosh Pandey before the trial Court concerned

under Sections 452 & 354 of IPC. Trial Court framed charges

under Sections 454 & 354 of IPC against accused persons.

They abjured their guilt and sought for trial. During course of

trial, co-accused Santosh Pandey died.

3. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary,

brought on record by both sides, vide judgment dated

15.6.2010 held that prosecution proved the charges under

Sections 454 & 354 of IPC against applicant and accordingly

convicted and sentenced in the manner as mentioned in first

paragraph of this order. Applicant preferred criminal appeal

before the Court of Sessions challenging his conviction, which

3

was also dismissed by impugned judgment.

4. Mr. D.N. Prajapti, learned counsel for applicant would submit

that it is the case of false implication. Applicant provided

electricity connection to complainant and her husband for

Rs.8,000/-, out of which they have paid only Rs.6,000/- to him,

therefore, some quarrel took place between them with respect

to payment of balance amount. Aforementioned fact has been

admitted by husband of complainant in Paragraph-4 of his

statement before the trial Court. He also contended that

Pramila (PW-3), who was examined as an eyewitness to prove

entrance of applicant in the house of complainant, has not

supported case of prosecution by deposing that she does not

know anything about incident, police has not recorded her

statement. In cross-examination this witness also denied

suggestion with regard to entry of accused persons in the

house of complainant. He also contended that as per

prosecution story, complainant, immediately after the incident,

informed village Kotwar (PW-4) about the incident, but this

witness has also not supported prosecution case. Hence,

prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt any of

the charges framed against applicant. However, both the

Courts below have not considered the evidence of prosecu