Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 251 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 14.08.1997 passed by Sri A.K. Dubey, Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in G.R. No. 1037/94 (Hajipur Town P.S. 145/94). ************ 1. Gouri Shankar Gupta, S/o Late Sita Ram Sah. 2. Sita Ram Rai, S/o Late Mahesh Rai. Both of Mohalla-Minapur, Police Station- Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali.. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Opposite Party) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 452, 323, 379, 354, 427 and 500 IPC and sentenced to RI for two years, one year, two years, two years, one year and one year respectively as also under Section 3 (XI) of SC/ST (Prevention) of Atrocities Act and sentenced to RI for three years by the Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in G.R. No. 1037 of 1994 (Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 145/94) by a judgment dated 14.08.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 5, Shanti Devi is that at about ten days ago both the accused persons had come into her house and attempted to insult her and threatened her with the possibility of taking out printed leaflets about her. On 2 the date of occurrence i.e. 12.05.1994, the informant saw a child pasting leaflets on her wall at which she protested. The accused then insulted and began to assault her. She then ran into her house where the accused persons followed her and dragged her to door and attempted to outrage her modesty. However, a protest was made at which the accused persons left the place but only after committing theft of household articles. A panchayti was convened in the matter but the dispute could not be sorted out. Then the present case was instituted after four days. 3. The prosecution to prove its case has examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 5 is the informant and P.W. 6 is her daughter they both are eye witnesses. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are also eye witnesses on the point of occurrence. P.W. 7 is a formal witness whereas P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. 4. From the evidence of P.W. 5, I find that she stated that she was a harijan by caste whereas the appellants were not harijans and they had entered into her house after a protest was made by her about pasting of some pamphlets and they attempted to outrage her modesty. The appellants also committed theft of household articles and they damaged the toddy bottles and drums which had been kept there. P.W. 6, the daughter of the informant stated that when her mother 3 had protested at the action of the appellants of pasting leaflets on the wall they assaulted her and also attempted to outrage her modesty. She supported the fact that even ten days back an attempt was made by the appellants to outrage the modesty of her mother. She stated that the leaflets which had been pasted contained obscene reference to her mother which had lowered their prestige in the society. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who are all named in the First Information Report have categorically stated that when the informant protested over the action of the present appellants over pasting of leaflets they chased her and dragged her out of house and outraged her modesty and committed theft of articles. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the facts of the case no offence punishable under the SC/ST Act would be made out since the pamphlets had not been brought on record and they were simply marked for identification. 6. I am inclined to accept this submission advanced on behalf of the appellants. However, considering that there is consistent evidence that the appellants had trespassed into the house of the informant and assaulted her as also had outraged her modesty and also committed mischief, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellants under 4 Sections 354, 323, 347, 379 and 452 IPC. Since the occurrence had taken place about 17 years ago, in the interest of justice the period already undergone by them during trial shall be sufficient punishment. 7. With the aforesaid modifications in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 11th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-