Allowed

Shivratri Ratrey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jun 2025CRA/156/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 354-A(2) IPC for outraging modesty of a minor. Prosecution witnesses, including victim and parents, turned hostile with material contradictions regarding disclosure timing. Court held prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, quashed conviction and acquitted appellant.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shivratri Ratrey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

CRA No.156/2016

2025:CGHC:22719

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

AMARDEEP CHOUBEY

¶7

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.10 17:26:38 +0530

¶8

CRA No. 156 of 2016

¶9

1 - Shivratri Ratrey S/o Nandram Ratrey Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Kot, P.S. - Sarseeva, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant (s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S. H. O. - Sarseeva, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

09.06.2025

¶17

This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/01/2016, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in S.S.T. No.1/2015, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence and sentenced as under:-

¶18

¶19

CRA No.156/2016

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 354-A(2) of the IPC	R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, additional R.I. for 1
	month

¶21

Facts of the case, in brief, is that the mother of the victim lodged a report against the appellant that on 08/12/2014 at about 4 a.m., the appellant came to her house and caught hold of the hand of her minor daughter stating that he is loving her and thereafter, tried to outrage her modesty. When the complainant objected the said act of the appellant, he started quarreling with her. The complainant narrated the incident to her husband and Uncle(kaka sasur) and thereafter, lodged a report against the appellant bearing Crime No.212/14 for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC and Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act. After due investigation, the appellant was arrested and spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-3. The mark-sheet of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-1 and thereafter, submitted the final report before the competent Court.

¶22

The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶23

In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. The statement of

¶24

¶25

CRA No.156/2016

¶26

the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the parents as well as victim have not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. He would submit that there are material contradiction in the statement of parents of the victim. Learned counsel would submit that there is a previous animosity between the appellant and the parents of the victim and only to take revenge, the false allegations have been foisted against the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the appellant and the family members of the victim are relatives. The trial Court without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for.

¶29

¶30

CRA No.156/2016

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶32

The mother of the victim has been examined as PW-1. The victim has been examined as PW-2 and her father has been examined has PW-3.

¶33

PW-1, mother of the victim stated at para 4 of the crossexamination that she has not disclosed about the incident to her neighbors, which took place at about 4 a.m. with her daughter. This witness stated that her husband used to work as Hamal and for which, he proceeded for work at 4 a.m. and return at 7 a.m. for meal and thereafter, he again went to work. At para 5, this witness denied that she has not disclosed about the incident of 4 a.m. to her husband, when he came for meal at 7 a.m. Further at para 6, she stated that in respect of pavement, there was a dispute between both the families.

¶34

PW-2, the victim has also turned hostile. At para 4 of her crossexamination, she stated that she does not know the appellant caught hold of her hand with ill-intention. She stated that the appellant is their relative and she used to call him as Chacha . She also stated that she has no knowledge about the dispute took place between the appellant and her mother at 9 a.m.

¶35

PW-3, father of the victim has stated that when the quarrel took place between the appellant and his wife at 9 a.m., he came from the work. He also stated that when he came for meal at 7 a.m., his

¶36

¶37

CRA No.156/2016

¶38

wife has not disclosed about the incident which took place with their daughter at 4 a.m. However, he on his own stated that when he came at 9 a.m. at that time, his wife disclosed the incident took place in the wee hours.

¶39

The other witnesses namely PW-4 Santoshi and PW-5 Arvind Ratre, who were the villagers have also not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶40

From the evidence adduced by the prosecutions witnesses, it is quite vivid that there is material contradiction in the statements of the PW-1, mother and PW-3, father of the victim. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to the PW-1, mother of the victim, the incident took place with the victim PW-2 in the wee hours of the month of December, 2014.

¶41

From bare perusal of the evidence of the PW-1 and PW-3, who are the parents of the victim PW-2, it is apparent that though PW1 at para 5 of her cross-examination has denied that she has not disclosed about the incident of 4 a.m. to her husband PW-3 when he came for meal at 7 a.m., but PW-3 at para 3 his crossexamination has admitted the fact that his wife has not disclosed the incident of 4 a.m. to him when he came for meal at 7 a.m. Thus, it is quite vivid that there are material contradiction and omissions in the evidence of the parents of the victim.

¶42

¶43

CRA No.156/2016

¶44

Normally, in the month of December, which is a winter season, there is complete darkness in the area and hence, it is difficult to find out the persons and except the PW-1, no other independent witness is there. From the material available in the record, it is apparent that the appellant and the family of the victim are relatives and there is a dispute between both the families in respect of pavement.

¶45

Had it been if there is any untoward incident took place with the minor daughter in the wee hours, the mother is supposed to intimate about the said incident to her husband when he came for meal at 7 a.m., whereas she has not disclosed the same and only when the quarrel took place at 9 a.m., the wife disclosed the early morning incident to her husband. Thus, the act of the PW-1 creates suspicious

¶46

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the facts that there are material contradiction and omissions in the statements of the parents of the victim, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court also failed to appreciate the case in its true perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be and is hereby quashed.

¶47

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted from the charge leveled against him. The appellant is reported to

¶48

¶49

CRA No.156/2016

¶50

be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.

¶51

The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and

¶52

necessary action. SD/-

¶53

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶54

Gowri/ Amardeep

Shivratri Ratrey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shivratri Ratrey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Avinash Singh

Pushpa Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harpreet Singh Sandhu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepchand Alias Amirchand Pasi Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Jayram Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Thakur Das Kotwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh