COUST FEES EXEMPTED BY WOTiFtCATION N0.996(yD-2870/Xxi. 8/C.Q./05 AS SPECIFIEDIN SCHSDULE; ;»•BOF THE COURT CEES ^GT 1870 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR /J200gr -^CELJVI^-P^-NO. ACOUITTAL APPEAL N0. <^t> /2009 APPELLANT: The State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT: •S.S* ^ ^^- <^^-w^. '53t"0»r>-' . ^ ^-- ^>-' a.i9- f\^ ^Y'.^)'f^ Rajkumar Kashyap S/o.- Bhagwat Prasad Kashyap, Aged about - 46 years R/o.- Village - Buchlakapa P.S. Jarhagaon, District—Bilaspur (C.G.) APPLICATION U/S 378 (3) FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 37841) OF CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '1973. S.-tjmaEyui^ni ^•""^ if ^ .sffSf 'i^-iiy f^f • ^aa«s"'l " 's""N;5aaac!a Elid,. ""'5!""SB^*siS !T E< miai lU Tf.: ' S 1 A & I" ;LLAN 'UI IEN' The ofChhattisaarh. Rnjkumar Kashyap. INU/S /^ iEAL OF U/S 378(1 j OF |URf=. 1S73 ', -w S "aS, A.ODearance: Shri Praveen Das, Depufrv Govemment Advocate for the State/aDpeiiant. Smt. indira Tripathi, counse! for respondsnt. .-. ..- '1/01/2011) ' - F.oilowing oral order of th^s kS?^d bv fl^^t,±VTifa^ ?--/ Jf Prasharit Kumar Mishra. J. This.is^n gppeal preferred by the prosecuti&n chaltenaing the judgmem of acquittal passed by'tte Specia! Judge-aSqu'tting the resDondent-accused from charaes under Sact'on 354 of !;P.G. and uncfiar Section 3(1)(XI) ofthe Scheduted Caste snd Schedyted TribefPrevsntion ofAtrocities)Act,1985. • • .. ...,; 1' ':';'••.'• (2) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that ?t about 1'5,00 p.m.^on 24'03/2008 the a"De!!ant went to tho: Pr'marv Schoo! Motimnur?and -enctuired from the prosecutrix abpu+: her'Madam and'started ta!king to RA^/2 DanQshw^n P:^ti©. Th@ ^co'it?^<i st3.ftod 3s-!<in-o'.th@'stud9nts incii sding the prosecutrix as to whether thay aj"e getting mjd day maai and- at that time the accused started scufflina Wth one Vandna. When the prosecyirix rafesd objection, the accused asked'her to get out a.nd started abusing her by using her caste name and .also tried .to outFage.her modesty by catching ho!d of her chest. nn this the prosecutrix objected • and asked theaccused as to wheiher he h-as e.ome to schoo! for inquirins or for outraging t'ne modesty of the girls. The prosecutrix started cryjng and inrormed the incidentto her friends Vandna and Sahvant!n(W/'f'2) as \ also to Daneshwari Madam (PW/4). The F.S.R. (Ex.P/3) was foijged by "^^ ll'"ti •^....^ -9 !^l:?-;<:?:'^:^;tS Manharan Lal (PW/5), After completing the investigation, charge-sheet for ofrence under Section 3(1)(XI) ofthe Scheduled Caste and Scheduied Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985 and under Section 354 of I.P.C. was fited. The prosecution examlned nine witnesses includlng prosecutrix (PW/1), .Sat.want! Bai (PW/2), Jawahar La! (PW/3), Deneshwari (RA//4), Manharan Yadav (R/V/5), M.L. (R/V/6), D.K. Tiwari (PW/7), A.K. Jain (PW/8) and T. Toppo (PVW9). The accused exarnined Motiiai as the sole defence witness. (3) Learned trial C-ourt, after appreciating the evidence put forth by the prosecution in detaii, has acqultted the accused mainly re'ying upon the statement of (DW/1) Motilal as also the materia! contradict'on and omissions in the case ofthe prosecution more part'cuiariy reSyjng on the fact that at the re'evant time the accused had gone to enqu're about proper implementation of mid day mea' scheme at the jnstance of concerned Wember of Parliament which fact has been admitted by PW,'1 prosecutrix herseif. (4) This Court has gone through the entire evidence. PAf71, the prosecutrix, has admitted in paragraph 11 of her statement that at the time of incidem the accused was enquiring about the implementation of mid day meal scheme from Daneshwari Madam and had stated on her own t'nat one month prior to date of incident mid day meal was not served in the school. The prosecutrix has also admitted that the accused enauired from other students also and that there was dispi.rts/a'tereation between ths accused and Daneshwari Madarn. (PWW Daneshwari Madam has denied that any altercation occurred betv/een herself and accusecf. This statement is contrary to the admisslon made by PW/1, the prosecutrix. Apart from this the triai Court has obsen'ed th?,t the prosecutrix, PW/2 Satwantin Bai and PW13 Karamdas are reiat'ves and as thus disbelieved their statement keeplng in view the contrad'ction as also the statement of DW/1 Motllai. (5) Thls Court has aiso perused the statement of a!l the witnesses an< from the said statements it is not found that the obsen/ations made and findings recorded by the frial Court are perverse or that the tria! Court has rngde out a case which is not available on record. Apart from this the accused has also raised a defence in h's statement under Section 313 of 11:-—Ti;'--?' -3- Cr.P.C, that when he was inquiring abo'jt the proper implementation of mid day meal scheme, PW/4 Daneshwa" got annoyed and the F.i.R. has been lodged at her instance and he has been falsely imp'lcated, Thus the defance raised and the reason for his false implication js suppor d by the admission of prosecutrix in para 11 of her cross-exam'naUon. th^ ni-^ttar nf ^.iSI/i ^-^i 7 SC Pat Rthers vs. State of Harysng and ys. hy reported in (2009) 10 SCC Wl the Hon'bte Supreme Court has iaid-down the principle as to the scope of interfsrence in an appeal preferred agalnst the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. (7) Keeping In vie'A' the scope of interferenc;®and after.finding that the findings arrived at bythe tria! Court while acquitting the accused from the charges are not pen/erse and that even if hro views are pocsib!e, the High Court is not entitted to reverse the finciino o* acquittal, this instant appeai 'nas no substance v/hlch desen'es to be and is hereby c'ism'ssed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ISsSEHlSWs^^^S3