ORDER : 1. By this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), applicant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 08.08.2016 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.20200000053 of 2016 partly allowed the judgment dated 01.04.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No.68 of 2015 whereby First Appellate Court while maintaining the conviction of applicant/ accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment of 18 months and fine amount has been increased from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, applicant/accused would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Undisputed facts of the case, are that, both the parties are residents of village Kusmunda. Prosecutrix (PW-1) is a married woman. Ashok Gupta (PW-2) is husband of prosecutrix (PW-1). Other witnesses, namely, Rohit Patel (PW-3) and Sukhdev Gupta (PW-4) are residents of same village. Sukhdev Gupta (PW-4) is maternal uncle of Ashok Gupta (PW-2). 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.09.2014, prosecutrix (PW-1) had gone to Baigadeepa side of village for Disha Maidan with water in a bucket. At about 4.30 PM in the evening, when she was coming back towards home, applicant/accused who was cutting grass, left the sickle in the ridge and with an intention to insult the prosecutrix (PW-1), caught hold of her right hand wrist, by which, her bangles got broken. He snatched the bucket and threw it in the field. He dragged her 40-50 feet away to Dharmendra Patel's field and threw her forcefully. The prosecutrix, who was 6 months pregnant, kept refusing, but accused did not listen. He was stripped naked by forcefully pulling off all her clothes. When she shouted, he threatened her to kill. He tried to commit sexual intercourse with her and climbed on top of her. Prosecutrix making excuses for defence, lied to her husband and children by swearing that she would come to same place at 11.00 AM on the next day. Then, accused tore her blouse and started pressing her breasts. When she shouted, he threatened her to kill. He tried to commit sexual intercourse with her and climbed on top of her. Prosecutrix making excuses for defence, lied to her husband and children by swearing that she would come to same place at 11.00 AM on the next day. Then, accused tore her blouse and started pressing her breasts. Thereafter, prosecutrix pushed him away to save her life, ran with saree in her hand, came home and narrated the incident to her husband. Due to which, she suffered injuries on her hands, legs, waist and nose. She went with her husband and narrated the incident to Rohit Patel (PW-3) and Sukhdev Gupta (PW-4). Due to ill-health, she went to the hospital for treatment. After recovery, she came back to village and lodged a report at Police Station Pusaur on 06.10.2014. After registering the case vide Ex.P/1, the investigating agency arrived at the spot and prepared spot map vide Ex.P/2; seized broken pieces of bangles and one slipper of prosecutrix from the spot vide Ex.P/3; further seized red bangle worn on her wrist, button broken and torn blouse, an old used saffron colored shadow, photocopy of Mother and Child Protection Card and her second slipper from the prosecutrix vide Ex.P/4. Thereafter, medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted. Statements of witnesses were taken and accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. He stated that earlier, he used to work as a labourer in the house of Rohit Patel (PW-3). Because he had left the work of Rohit Patel, he has been implicated in a false case. In order to prove his defence, he has examined Bozia Dansena (DW-1), who has made a statement to the effect that on the date of alleged incident, applicant/accused was working as a labourer in his place. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no satisfactory explanation has been given for inordinate delay in lodging the report after 7 days of the alleged incident. He would further submit that there are serious contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no satisfactory explanation has been given for inordinate delay in lodging the report after 7 days of the alleged incident. He would further submit that there are serious contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The witnesses examined by prosecution are related to each other and interested witnesses. Rohit Patel (PW-3) is Gautiya of village and he has implicated the accused because he had left his job. The incident with prosecutrix must have been done by someone else, whom prosecutrix could not identify. Therefore, the fact of prosecutrix being shown photographs of several people and getting them identified has come into the prosecution evidence. Due to inability to identify the original culprit, Rohit Patel, being Gautiya of village, capitalizing on his grudge, falsely implicated the accused and using his influence, filed a false report. It is contended that prosecution witnesses have admitted that crime was registered in presence of Rohit Patel and under his influence, investigator has tried to hide this fact. The incident narrated by prosecution is an exaggeration and applicant has not committed any crime. Therefore, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts below should be set aside and applicant be acquitted. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on reliable and irrefutable evidence. Therefore, there is no need for interference. She would further submit that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such, instant application is liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Apart from aforementioned 4 witnesses, Lekhru Dehri (PW-6) is the witness of seizure vide Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4. The prosecution itself has confirmed the seizure of bangles, blouse, petticoat and slippers. He has been admission in his cross-examination that place of incident described as Dharmendra Patel's field where other women also gone for Disha Maidan. Other women also used similar items, like bangles, slippers etc., which have been seized. Thus, statement of Lekhru Dehri (PW-6) is not important for the prosecution. 9. It is noteworthy that medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted after 7 days of incident and report was given on 06.10.2014, which has not been proved by statement of doctor. Doctor has not been examined. 10. Thus, statement of Lekhru Dehri (PW-6) is not important for the prosecution. 9. It is noteworthy that medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted after 7 days of incident and report was given on 06.10.2014, which has not been proved by statement of doctor. Doctor has not been examined. 10. Assistant Sub-Inspector Bhagwat Yadav (PW-5) has investigated the matter, who established the crime. In cross-examination, he has stated that reason for delay in lodging the report was that prosecutrix got treated, but he has no information that where treatment was done. Thus, delay in lodging the report by 7 days is a significant factor. 11. Regarding the incident, prosecutrix (PW-1) has confirmed the incident in her Court statement. Hence, it would not be appropriate to repeat it again. There is no eyewitness to the incident. According to the prosecution case, husband of prosecutrix Ashok Gupta (PW-2), Rohit Patel (PW-3) and Sukhdev Gupta (PW-4) have stated in their Court statement that Ashok Gupta was informed by his wife, after which, Ashok Gupta had informed Rohit Patel and his uncle Sukhdev Gupta about the incident. In such a situation, leaving aside the statement of prosecutrix, remaining 3 witnesses have stated the same thing about the incident, which was told to them by prosecutrix and her husband Ashok Gupta. It would not be appropriate to mention these hearsay things again and only important facts are being discussed which have come in the statements of these 3 witnesses. 12. Ashok Gupta (PW-2), husband of prosecutrix has stated that before lodging of report, Panchayat was convened in the village. The fact of convening of Panchayat has been mentioned in the statements of other witnesses along with prosecutrix. It is noteworthy that in the entire prosecution case, there was no fact of convening Panchayat. Rather, the reason for delay in lodging the report has been mentioned in First Information Report that report was delayed due to treatment. It becomes necessary to analyze the evidence on the subject as to why Panchayat was convened ? 13. Ashok Gupta (PW-2), husband of prosecutrix has stated in his cross-examination that after the incident, he had gone to Borla Hospital for treatment of prosecutrix. They had not lodged report immediately after returning from there. He has stated that distance of the incident site from his house would be about 400 meters. 13. Ashok Gupta (PW-2), husband of prosecutrix has stated in his cross-examination that after the incident, he had gone to Borla Hospital for treatment of prosecutrix. They had not lodged report immediately after returning from there. He has stated that distance of the incident site from his house would be about 400 meters. He has further stated that on the date of alleged incident, he did not give any information about the incident to village Panch, Sarpanch or Kotwar. He has also stated that after the incident, when his wife informed him about the incident, she did not know the name of person who caused the incident. The statement of Ashok Gupta (PW-2) is important, which makes it clear that Panchayat was convened because prosecutrix did not know the person who caused the incident by name. This fact has come in the statements of other witnesses that photographs of many people were shown to prosecutrix and when prosecutrix was identified them, a named report was lodged against the accused. Neither any written record of such identification proceedings nor any fact of such identification have been found in case of prosecution. Therefore, defence of accused that he was implicated due to his rivalry with Rohit Patel for leaving his job need not be ignored. 14. Ashok Gupta (PW-2), husband of prosecutrix has stated that his wife had recognized the accused in the Panchayat convened in the presence of Panch, Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch, Rohit Patel, Sukhdev Gupta etc. Now in further analysis, it will be seen how much involvement of Rohit Patel in commission of crime ? 15. When Sukhdev Gupta (PW-4), uncle father-in-law of prosecutrix did not give complete details of incident, prosecution declared him hostile. According to prosecution, entire incident has been confirmed on the leading questions. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that he had signed the seizure memo (Ex.P/3 & P/4) as well as arrest memo (Ex.P/5) in the village square where police has shown seized items to him. He further stated that police did not take any statement from him. He has denied of having any knowledge that accused used to work with Rohit Patel (PW-3) one year before the incident. But, it has been admitted that at the time of lodging of report, Rohit Patel (PW-3) had gone to police station along with prosecutrix and helped in lodging the report. He has denied of having any knowledge that accused used to work with Rohit Patel (PW-3) one year before the incident. But, it has been admitted that at the time of lodging of report, Rohit Patel (PW-3) had gone to police station along with prosecutrix and helped in lodging the report. Thus, involvement of Rohit Patel in registering the crime has become clear. 16. Rohit Patel (PW-3) himself has narrated the events as stated by Ashok Gupta (PW-2). He has stated in his examination-in-chief that prosecution had identified the accused by looking in voter list. But, case of prosecution is not such that prosecution has identified the accused later. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that he belongs to Gautiya family of village. He has disapproved the suggestion of defence that accused used to work for him and later, left the job. Thus, information given by prosecutrix herself that accused previously worked with Rohit Patel and denial of the said fact by Rohit Patel reveals that somewhere Rohit Patel has hidden the truth. In cross-examination, he has admitted that prosecutrix did not come to his house for giving information about the incident, rather Ashok Gupta (PW-2) had come, then, he went to house of prosecutrix and took information about the incident from her. He has clarified that Ashok Gupta (PW-2) had stated that some unknown person molesting the prosecutrix. This statement gives some support to defence. Hence, delay of 7 days in lodging report makes prosecution case against accused doubtful because prosecution witnesses have stated that incident was committed by an unknown person and later, accused has been identified in Court statement, as such, case of prosecution has not been the same. 17. Now, if I look at the statement of prosecutrix, she has stated in her cross-examination that Rohit Patel is Gautiya and leader of village, in whose house, accused used to work earlier. Before she came to village after getting married, accused was working in the family of Rohit Patel and left the work about one year before the incident. She has stated that Rohit Patel has good acquaintance with police and when she went to lodge report, Rohit Patel went along with her. Due to his efforts, police lodged the written report. Thus, it is clear from the statement of prosecutrix herself that Rohit Patel had full participation in lodging First Information Report. She has stated that Rohit Patel has good acquaintance with police and when she went to lodge report, Rohit Patel went along with her. Due to his efforts, police lodged the written report. Thus, it is clear from the statement of prosecutrix herself that Rohit Patel had full participation in lodging First Information Report. But, Rohit Patel has been hiding the said fact. Therefore, defence of accused cannot be ignored. 18. The prosecutrix has stated in her cross-examination that distance from her village to Police Station Pusaur was about 4-5 Kilometers and it takes 15-20 minutes to go by motorcycle etc. But, she did not lodge the report on the day of incident. The reason given was that she had gone to hospital and returned from hospital after two days and still did not lodge the report. She lodged the report after 4-5 days of coming from hospital. Thus, delay of 7 days has not been satisfactorily explained. 19. If I look at the events narrated in prosecution case with prosecutrix, then it is an incident of serious nature because not only the prosecutrix pregnant at that time, but incident taken place at a distance of 400-500 meters from her house in the daytime. The witnesses have admitted that like the prosecutrix other women also go to that side for Disha Maidan, but it is not the case of prosecution that anyone saw the incident or heard the screams. Therefore, non-reporting of incident for a week makes the prosecution case completely doubtful and the reason given by the prosecution for inordinate delay in lodging the report is not found satisfactory. 20. The prosecutrix has admitted that on the advice of her husband, Gautiya of village brought photographs of 4-5 persons and asked to identify. Then, she recognized the accused after seeing the photographs. She has stated that photograph was shown to her on the day after she returned from Borla Hospital. If she had identified by looking at the photographs on 3rd or 4th day, then it is not clear why there was a delay of 7 days in lodging report. The prosecutrix has also stated that she cannot state with certainty the names of boys of village, who showed her photographs. 21. If she had identified by looking at the photographs on 3rd or 4th day, then it is not clear why there was a delay of 7 days in lodging report. The prosecutrix has also stated that she cannot state with certainty the names of boys of village, who showed her photographs. 21. The prosecutrix has further stated that during the incident, she had bitten the hand of accused, but she was unable to state which of two hands, she had bitten. No such medical examination of accused has been conducted, which could provide any support to the statement of prosecutrix. 22. The prosecutrix has also stated that she has signed the spot map (Ex.P/2) and police had come to spot for investigation. But, she was not consistent on this point in her cross-examination. She stated in her cross-examination that she was at home when police came to spot. It means that she did not accompany the police to the spot. Only the prosecutrix knew the place of incident and if the prosecutrix did not tell the place of incident, then how did the police prepared the spot map, the same was not clear. Similarly, how police seized slippers and pieces of broken bangle from the place of incident is also not clear because prosecutrix herself had not gone to spot to inform them about the incident. Other women also go to work in the fields. According to prosecution case, women used to go there for Disha Maidan, in this situation, if any lady’s slipper or pieces of bangles have been recovered from there, it does not provide any special support to prosecution case against the accused. 23. If I consider the entire evidence as above, it becomes clear that the way prosecutrix has narrated the entire incident, according to her, accused had stripped her of all her clothes. After the incident, prosecutrix has asked to go home and stated the incident to her husband Ashok Gupta. But, it is not clear when and how she got fully dressed before reaching home. If prosecutrix was pregnant and taken to hospital after the incident, then it is not clear why she did not lodge report after coming from hospital after 2 days. The prosecutrix has stated that she identified the accused through photographs and then gone to lodge report, it has not been the case of prosecution. If prosecutrix was pregnant and taken to hospital after the incident, then it is not clear why she did not lodge report after coming from hospital after 2 days. The prosecutrix has stated that she identified the accused through photographs and then gone to lodge report, it has not been the case of prosecution. There has been no test identification parade. Ashok Gupta (PW-2) husband, Sukhdev Gupta (PW-4) uncle father-in-law as well as Rohit Patel (PW-3) are the witnesses. All these witnesses appear to have mutual interests. It is also seen that accused had earlier worked in family of Rohit Patel (PW-3) for a long time and had left his job about 1 year before the incident. This fact has been accepted by prosecutrix herself and her family members, but Rohit Patel has not accepted it. Therefore, it is reflected that Rohit Patel has deliberately hidden something. It is also clear that it was Rohit Patel who helped the prosecutrix and her family members for lodging of report to the Police Station. This fact has also been hidden by Rohit Patel and Investigator that prosecutrix herself has stated that Rohit Patel not only belongs to Gautiya family of village, but also a leader who has influenced the police. 24. In all these situations, when report has been lodged with a delay of 7 days and no satisfactory reason has been given for that delay, therefore, whole matter looks suspicious. The prosecutrix and interested witnesses are not found credible, hence, no presumption is created in its favor under Section 114(b) of Indian Evidence Act and accused has been entitled to benefit of doubt, which has not been given to him. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the accused is not found worthy of being upheld. 25. For the foregoing discussion, it is found that case of the prosecution against the applicant has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the applicant is entitled to benefit of doubt. At this stage, findings of Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court are not found to be sustainable in the eyes of law. 26. In the result, instant criminal revision is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and partly allowed by the First Appellate Court are set aside. At this stage, findings of Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court are not found to be sustainable in the eyes of law. 26. In the result, instant criminal revision is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and partly allowed by the First Appellate Court are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 354 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt. The applicant has been stated to be on bail. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of provision contained in Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. If there is no need to appear in the Superior Court, he will be deemed free from bail bonds. If the applicant has deposited the imposed fine amount, the same shall be returned to him. 27. Record of the Courts be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.