. ^,^ (^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKARJ. J Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2000 Appellant Chitren Singh s/o. Keju Ram Resoondents Vs. The State of M.P. now Chhattisgarh through Police Station Dhamdha, Dist. Durg. POSTFORPRONOUNCEMENTOF JUDGMENT Sd/- ^.OaB<! 3udge JUDGE C?-8-2009 -l;-'!!ia<s 6SSI ':Ky Appellant: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CriminaLAppeal No. 173 of 2000 Chitren Singh, S/o. Keju Ram, aged about 22 years, r/o. village Tuma Kala, Police Station Dhamdha, Dist. Durg, MP (now Chhattisgarh). Versus Respondent: State of M.P. now Chhattisgarh through Police Station Dhamdha, Distt. Durg, M.P. (Criminal appeal u/S 374 (2) oftheCode ofCriminal Procedure 1973) SB: Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, J. Present: Mr. Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Mr. A.V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on g? August, 2009) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-12-1999 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities Act), in Special Trial No. 66 of 1999, whereby learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 354 ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.l. for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 4-7-1999 at about 7.00 p.m., when the prosecutrix had gone to answer the call of nature outside the village, the accused/appellant coming from the back side of the prosecutrix caught hold of her hands, arms and breast. On this, the prosecutrix made outcry, pushed him away and rushed to her house. She narrated the incident to her husband and father-in-law. On the next I 1 ^ &te» "'SS.KS '^S .-L jy ' ^^J day, the prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station, Dhamdha, whereupon the police registered the F.1.R. No. 76 of 1999 and investigated the matter. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Special Judge. The learned Special Judge framed charge against the accused/appellant under Section 354 of the IPC and 3 (i) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of the Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant abjured the guilt. 4. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge against the appellant, examined as many as 8 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C , in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication. The accused/appellant examined Keju Ram (DW/1) and Itwari (DW/2) in his defence. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph-1 of the judgment. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. On the basis of material available on record, the court below ought to have acquitted the appellant. The court below ought to have disbelieved the statementof complainant Anita Bai (PW/1). She has made exaggerated statement in the court and has falsely implicated the appellant. There are number of contradictions and omissions in the statement of Anita Bai. Learned counse] further submits that the FIR and the statement u/S.161 of the complainant will make it very clear that the complainant Anita Bai has falsely implicated the appellant. The court below ought to have disbelieved the statement of Phool Singh (PW/2) and Sato (PW/3). The court below ought to have relied upon the statement of Keju Ram (DW/1). ^3 The court below should have seen the evidence of R.P. Sahu (PW/5) and Dr. Chandravanshi (PW/6). These witnesses have not supported the version of the complainant. Lastly learned counsel submits that considering all the above facts, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State argued the matter in support ofthe impugned judgment ofthe lower Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 1 have perused the records of the trial Court as also the impugned judgment. 9. PW/1 - Anita Bai, the prosecutrix identified the accused/appellant in the court and deposed that approximately before three months, when she had gone out to answer the call of nature, the accused came from her back side and forcibly caught hold of her hands, arms and breast with bad intention. The accused/appellant also abused her saying "Sate godin aaj to/a nahi chhodo". Thereafter, she pushed him away, went to her house and narrated the incident to her husband. She further stated that during the forcible attempt to outrage her modesty made by the accused, her bangles were broken and blouse was torn. Thereafter, she went to Police Station, Dhamdha, along with her husband father-in-law and lodged FIR (Ex.P/1). The Police sent her to Government Hospital for medical examination where she was examined by Doctor. The Police seized her blouse, petticoat and broken bangles vide Ex.P/2 and prepared spot map vide Ex.P/3. The Police seized her caste certifioate vide Ex.P/4 and recorded her statement. This witness was cross examined at length but she remained unrebutted on material point and clearly denied the suggestion of previous enmity between the families, given by the defence side. 10. PW/2 Phool Singh, husband of the prosecutrix corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix and deposed that on 4-7-1999 when he r t"Si»*^ B fe,,-<? 4 ^ returned from his work, his wife (PW/1) stated out the incident to him and he went to Police Station along with his wife to lodge the report. He also admitted the seizure memo EX.P/2 and spot map Ex.P/3, prepared by the Police in his presence. 11. PW/3 Sato Bai, mother-in-law and PW/4 Dayaram, father-in-law of the prosecutrix also corroborated the version of the prosecutrix (PW/1) and denied the suggestion of previous enmity between the families of the accused and the prosecutrix. 12. PW/5 R.P. Sahu, the Assistant Sub Inspector admitted in his deposition that he registered the F1R No. 76/99 on 5-7-1999 under Section 354 of the IPC and 3 (i)(xi) of the Act on the basis of report given by the prosecutrix. He also admitted that nothing was left or added in the FIR at his own accord. 13. PW/6 Dr. P.D. Chandravanshi deposed that he examined the prosecutrix on 6-7-1999 at 11.a.m. He found no external injury on the body of the prosecutrix but she made complaint about pain on her wrists and breast. 14. PW/7 Suresh Mulkarwal, SDO(P) stated in his deposition that he received the case diary of Crime No. 76 of 1999 for investigation. He admitted that during investigation he seized blouse and broken bangles of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P/2 and prepared spot map vide Ex.P/3 in presence of witnesses. He further stated that on 9-7-1999 he arrested the accused/appellant before the witnesses vide arrest memo Ex.P/6 and recorded the statement of witnesses of Anita Bai, Phool Singh, Udal Das, Sato Bai, Sant Ram and Punau Ram as stated by them. 15. DW/1 Kejuram, father of the accused/appellant produced the documents Ex.D2, D/3, D/4 and D/5 of the criminal cases pending before SDM, Durg and Smt. Suman Ekka, JMFC and stated that in thesaid criminal cases, he and Ram Pal belonged to one party whereas Sanjay and Tarkeshwar belonged to the other party. Bhagwat Lodhi, father of Sanjay, is a teacher under whom the family members of the prosecutrix were working for a long time. His son (accused/appellant) was studying in Class XII in the same school where Bhagwat Prasad was posted. Once Bhagwat Prasad had asked the accused/appellant to sign in place of another student of Gadaghat to draw the scholar ship to which the accused/appellant denied. On this, Bhagwat Prasad had threatened the accused/appellant to implicate in a false case. He further stated that due to the above reason, his son has been falsely implicated in this case. 16. DW/2 Itwari stated in his deposition that he had seen Anita Bai (PW/1), her father and her husband going towards Dhamdha being accompanied by Devendra, Tarkeshwar and Sanjay. 17. Having considered all the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in view of the testimonies of the witnesses, the version of the prosecutrix (PW/1) has clearly been corroborated by PW/2, PW/3 & P/4. l-1er testimony is also corroborated by PW/5 the writer of FIR and (PW/7) Investigating Officer. The fact of forcible attempt made by the accused/appellant tp outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix is also corroborated by the testimony of Doctor D.P. Chandravanshi (PW/6). 18. So far as the testimonies of defence witnesses are concerned, it has been tried to establish that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity between the families of accused/appellant and Bhagwat Prasad under whom the most of the family members of the prosecutrix were working. tt is hard to digest the story of defence that due to previous enmity between the families of accused/appellant and Bhagwat Prasad, the prosecutrix can be used to implicate the accused/appellant. Therefore, the testimonies of the defence witnesses are unreliable and the defence story fails. The Special Court has rightly placed reliance on the testimonies of the © prosecution witnesses and discarded the testimonies of the defence witnesses. 19. For the foregoing, l am of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Special Court does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or irregularity warranting interference in this appeal. 20. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. : R.N. Chandrakar Judge