_ , V wii‘rmgg > M156. CRmINIim CASE Neglgg /§ , Jihe State of VM;p .1 thréugh poiiioe .E statignhaatg;1, Distt". sargujaum)‘ ’ v . Eg sh VAT JA BALéum, cgmiN-m mam; Ne. :Fg-Q 5 ‘ /' 9 “5‘ EPmMéa— 3" f . 'VS' RESPONMT’Sr !/§§néular} S/o ,Bgdhéi Ra“, agéd 25 yeg‘s. Voc‘ogpatio‘n—Familgq. R/o” Gram Manpur, police station satou, mstt‘. sarguj amp)“; ‘7 cm % . r. amm ; ués avails? p c3 v RE (2&5. co , , £22mmm£é3 m ‘ wPE% UNDER SECTEO ’ H a'f s . / a 3 -v N - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench = Hon'ble Mr, Jusfice Prmnker Diwaker! CRIMINAL APPEAL No 463 of 1996 APPELLANT State af Madhyo Pmdesh {mw ChhaHisgarh) Versas RESPONDENT Ramdular' son of Budhal Ram Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. 6A. fer The STme/appeliant.’ MI“ Shakfi Raj Sinha counsei for The respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE O R D E R (22.01.2010) p With The consent of The orfies, fhe mah‘er' is heard r finally. —Presem‘ appeal is directed against judgment dated 24.2.1995 passed by Judicial Magis'i'rafe, Second} Class, Ambikapur (Surguja) in Criminal Case No. 272/1994 acquh‘l'ing lhe respondent of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354 and 324 of The Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facTs of The case are ThaT on 10.4.1994 FIR was lodged by prosecuTrix (PW-1) alleging in iT ThaT on 8.4.1994 The respondent/accused had enTered her house caughT hold of her and pulled her and said ThaT he wanTed To ouTrage her modesty. IT is furTher alleged ThaT when she had refused To accompany whim, she was ThreaTened and some explosive powder was / applied on her face, as a resulT of which she had burning sensaTion on her face. 3. In supporT of iTs case, The prosecuTion has examined as i w. many as 8 wiTnesses. STaTemenT of The respondenT/accused was also recorded under Sec’rion 313 cf fhe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied The charges ieveied against him and pleaded innocence and false implica‘rion in The case. 4. By i'he impugned judgment fhe court below has acquitied +he respondent for The offences punishable under Sec’rions 354 and 324 of ihe Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for The appellant/Stare submits that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution,vthe court below ought to have convicted the respondent. He submits that entire evidence has been overlooked by the court below while ~ passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that prosecutrix is the wife of the respondent/accused and; therefore respondent wanted to have her company. He submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, offence under Section‘354 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the respondent/accused. He also submits that even investigation officer has not been examined nor the First Information Report has been proved by the prosecution and there is 2 days' delay in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Prosecutrix (PW—1) in her statement has stated that on the fateful day at about 1O pm when she was in‘ her mother’s g house; the respondent came there, caught hold of her and made an attempt to take her to his house, when she refused to accompany the respondent, she was dragged and then she also shouted but nobody came there. In her cross-examination, she ii dmits that earlier she was living as a wife of the respondent and +ill date she has noT married again. She fur'Ther' sfafes fhaf she was bea’ren by the respondenf with bamboo stick. In her' cross examination The prosecufr'ix has no? siai'ed iha‘r-sh‘e was caught hold by The respondeni’ wii’h an infem‘ion i0 ou’rr'age her- modesiy. 9. Admi‘i’fed‘iy, when The prosecu‘ir'ix was fhe wife of ihe respondent she has noT made any allegation fha‘t she was caughf hdld by ’rhe accused with an inlenfion to ouTrage :her’ modesty, the fact that FIR has not been proved by the prosecution and investigation officer has not been examined, the court below .is fully justified in acquitting the respondent/accused. 10. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in acase against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one View favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellant Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/ accused of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingl. y r\\ D/- m‘w‘mve‘ so] game “9‘“a“e‘” . if a