HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma Crjminal Appeal No.1019 of 1996 Derhu Ram versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT Postfor 01-12-2011 Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma Criminal Appeal No.1019 of 1996 Appellant versus Respondent Derhu Ram, S/o Fulsingh Sahu, aged 41 years, R/o Village Keshodar, Police Station Gariyaband, District Raipur (M.P.) (now Chhattisgarh) State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) through Police Station Gariyaband, District Raipur Present: Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure JUDGMENT (Delivered on °^ December, 2011) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 14-6-1996 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.254/1996. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Derhu Ram has been convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act, 1989') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences of rigorous imprisonment are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 12-11-1994, at about 5:00 P.M., complainant Sohadrabai (PW-1) was present at her home. Her family members had gone out of the house. At that time, the appellant entered her house and caught her hand with bad intention and asked her to come out with him. She extricated her hand from the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant went away from there. She narrated the incident to their family members on their coming back to home. She also narrated the incident to other persons of the village. Thereafter, she lodged First Information Report (Ex.P-1) in Police Station Gariyaband. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Special Judge, Raipur, who conducted the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no evidence available on record to show that the appellant had caught hold of hand of the complainant Sohadrabai (PW-1) to outrage her modesty just because she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He further submits that even the complainant has not stated in her statement that the act alleged against the appellant was done by him with an intent to outrage her modesty. The conduct of the complainant and Ratiram is unnatural. The FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged at a belated stage and there is no proper explanation therefor. The evidence of the complainant is full of contradictions and suffers from material inconsistencies and infirmities and does not establish guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant has been convicted erroneously on the basis of infirm and unreliable evidence. He further submits that the appellant is a disabled person and is not able to move normally. He can move with assistance of a stick only. 4. On the contrary, Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge is impeccable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Complainant Sohadrabai (PW-1) deposed that she belongs to Gond Scheduled Tribe. She knows the appellant. The appellant is a resident of her village and he belongs to Teli Caste. On 12-11- 1994, at about 5 P.M., her in-laws and husband had gone to agricultural field and she was alone at her home. A guest, namely, Ratiram had come to her house and he was taking meals. When she was standing in courtyard (Parchhi) of the house, the appellant came there and having caught hold of her hand, began to drag her. The appellant abused her. She also abused her. On her screaming, the appellant fled. On her in-laws and husband's returning home, she narrated them the incident. Thereafter, a meeting took place in thevillage. Thereafter, she lodged First Information Report (Ex.P-1) in the police station. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the guest Ratiram was taking meals. He asked her to beat the appellant and he also abused the appellant. He did not extricate her from the appellant. He was screaming having meals. She further deposed in cross-examination that it is true that accused Ratiram used to visit her house. 7. Dhanesh (PW-3) deposed that he belongs to Gond Scheduled Tribe and the complainant Sohadrabai (PW-1) is his wife. On 12-11- 1994, when he returned home from the agricultural field, the complainant asked him to gather villagers as the appellant had come to the house, caught her hand and had abused her. In cross- examination, he deposed that they had not asked the appellant to attend the meeting held in the village. He further deposed that Ratiram is father of the complainant. 8. Jodhan (PW-4) deposed that the complainant had told him about abusing her by the appellant. The complainant had told him about abusing her by the appellant in the meeting held in the village. The complainant had not told him in the meeting about catching of her hand by the appellant. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had not stated in his police statement that the complainant had told him in the meeting that she was abused by the appellant. 9. According to complainant Sohadrabai (PW-1), Ratiram was present at the house at the time of incident. According to Dhanesh (PW-3), Ratiram is father of the complainant. The conduct of i^ Ratiram was very unnatural. If the appellant caught hold hand of the complainant, Ratiram could try to intervene, but he did not extricate her from the appellant. Ratiram is not examined by the prosecution. A village panchayat was called by Dhanesh (PW-3), but in the said panchayat, the appellant was not called and the FIR(Ex.P-l) was lodged after due deliberation. Complainant Sohadrabai (PW-1) simply stated that she belongs to Gond Scheduled Tribe. She never deposed that since she belongs to Gond Tribe, the appellant tried to outrage her modesty or the alleged act was done by him with an intent to assault or dishonour or outrage her modesty because she is a member of Scheduled Tribe. Hence, conviction under Section 3(1 )(xi) of the Act, 1989 is not proved. 10. Having discussed factual aspects of the case in the light of the evidence of the witnesses, this Court reaches the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the fact that the entire act alleged against the appellant was done by himwith an intent to assault or dishonour or outrage modesty of the complainant just for the reason that she is a member of Scheduled Tribe. Even otherwise, merely the complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe, it does not attract the provision of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989 unless the evidence is available on record. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly set aside. 11. The evidence of complainant Sohadrabai (PW-1) herself also suffers from material infirmities. According to the prosecution, at the time of incident, Ratiram was present there and he did not extricate the complainant. Even thereafter, the prosecution did not examine Ratiram. The FIR (Ex.P-1) was also lodged after due deliberation. Therefore, the evidence led by the prosecution is not reliable. The whole evidence against the appellant becomes doubtful and the evidence of the complainant does not inspire confidence. 12. In fact, the evidence available on record does not establish guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in correct perspective and erred in convicting the appellant under Sections 3(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989 and 451 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 13. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 451 ofthe Indian Penal Code are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. __— Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Gopal