Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 509 of 2016

¶5

Reserved on 21.11.2025 Pronounced on 12.12.2025

¶6

Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Late Khelawan Chaturvedi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, P.O. Purai, P.S. Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station House Officer, Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

			... Non-Applicant
For Applicant	: Smt. Preet	Meena i Yadav,	Shastri appears along with Ms. Advocate.
For Respondent/State	: Shri Advo	Atanu cate.	Ghosh, Deputy Government

¶11

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶12

C A V Order

¶13

The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 04.06.2016 passed by the learned 8^th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.235/2013, affirming the judgment dated 09.09.2013 passed in Criminal Case No.135/2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, C.G., whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 456 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine

¶14

2

¶15

amount, to undergo additional imprisonment for one month under each count and acquitted him of the charge under Section 323 of IPC.

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.02.2009 finding the prosecutrix (P.W.1) alone, the applicant committed the house trespass and tried to outrage her modesty by holding her hands and shoulders and when the prosecutrix resisted, he beat her up, thereafter, the prosecutrix screamed whereupon Meena, Kera (P.W.3) and Gautarheen (P.W.2) came there. Written report (Ex.P.2) was lodged at Police Station Utai by the prosecutrix and on the basis of report, F.I.R. (Ex.P.1) was lodged against the applicant under Sections 456, 354 & 323 IPC. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.3 and applicant was arrested on 26.02.2009.

¶17

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Durg against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶18

Learned court of JMFC and appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, while acquitting the applicant of the charge under Section 323 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence on record in its perspective manner, convicted and sentenced the applicant, which is erroneous and not sustainable in law. She would further submit that the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was not corroborated by the contents of F.I.R. (Ex.P.1) and written report (Ex.P.2). P.W.2 Gautarheen Bai and P.W.3 Kera Bai, who have been cited as key witnesses to the incident, have not supported the case of prosecution as they did not state that the victim (P.W.1) informed to them about the incident. She would also

¶20

3

¶21

submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its beyond reasonable doubt. On these premises, she would urge that the present revision be allowed and the applicant be acquitted of the said charge

¶22

On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while opposing the revision, would submit that the finding of conviction is based on the evidence and other material available on record, therefore, no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶23

In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, it is necessary to examine the evidence on record. The prosecutrix (P.W.1) has deposed that the applicant, after committing house trespass, approached her, started pulling her clothes, and demanded sexual favours. However, in her written report (Ex.P.2) and F.I.R. (Ex.P.1), she stated instead that the applicant pulled her hands and shoulders and attempted to outrage her modesty. These statements contradict her deposition before the Court. She further stated during her testimony that when she pushed the applicant/accused away, the bangle on her hand broke, and she raised an alarm. On hearing her cries, P.W.2 Gautarheen and P.W.3 Kera arrived at the spot, and the applicant allegedly fled upon seeing them. She also stated that she informed them about the incident. However, no such facts find mention in her written report (Ex.P.2) or in the F.I.R. (Ex.P.1). This creates material inconsistencies in her version.

¶24

P.W.2 Gautarheen Bai stated that upon hearing the prosecutrix’s shouts, she went to the prosecutrix’s house and saw the applicant coming towards the street. Yet, in her cross-examination, she admitted that other people also frequently pass through the same street, however, she has not stated that the prosecutrix told the incident to her. This indicates that the

¶25

4

¶26

prosecutrix’s house is situated in a public area with regular movement of people, raising doubt as to how the applicant could have committed house trespass and, if he had indeed attempted to outrage her modesty, why the prosecutrix did not immediately call for help from nearby residents.

¶27

P.W.3 Kera Bai corroborated the version of P.W.2 Gautarheen, but neither is an eyewitness to the incident. P.W.4 Durgaprasad, husband of the prosecutrix, stated that when he returned from work and went to the pond after leaving his bicycle at home, the prosecutrix later informed him that the applicant had come to her, grabbed her blouse, and threatened her. In crossexamination, he admitted that he was not aware of any persons who were present at the time of the incident.

¶28

A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4 shows that none of them witnessed the incident firsthand and that their statements merely reiterate what was narrated to them by the prosecutrix. Further, while the F.I.R. (Ex.P.1) records the time of the incident as 7:00 p.m., but how P.W.4 Durgaprasad stated that he along with his wife went to Police Station and lodged the report at 7:00 p.m. If the incident happens at 7:00 pm, as per F.I.R., then how the P.W.4 Durgaprasad and his wife lodged the report at Police Station at the same time, which creates the doubt.

¶29

From the above evidence, it is evident that the testimony of P.W.1, the prosecutrix, is not wholly reliable, as her statement appears to be doubtful and not corroborated by the written report (Ex.P.2) and other evidence of prosecution witnesses, as stated above. P.W.2 and P.W.3, who have been projected as key witnesses did not state that the prosecutrix had told them about the incident. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶30

5

¶31

I am, therefore, of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned J.M.F.C., and affirmed by the appellate Court are perverse and erroneous findings and are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges under Sections 456 and 354 of the IPC, on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶32

Consequently, the revision is allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned Sections and the sentence imposed thereunder are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charges mentioned above by extending benefit of doubt.

¶33

Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of B.N.S.S.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶36

Anjani

Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs Rajendra Prasad Pandey

Daulal Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Dhody Vs v.k.mukharjee

Arun Dashmale Vs Rambharos Sahu

Savitribai Lahare Vs Pintu Kesharwani

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Jeevrakhan Khunte