CF0000061911 4s^WL-& IN THE HISH GOtmT OF MADHrAEBADESH AI JA.BALPOR.Z GBIMI^L APSE&L 1?o. ^'<Y-9 of l995[-,p ^,^ ^;,^^0f APPE2.LA ICT (AGGUSBD) B&VI SHANKm STNGH, aged 60 years, TATU : a/o iSSQSingh C lioafeian,fCeaeher residetit; of Jori, P.S.B^a^tara, distriot ©urg. Vs KE19P 01BENT. Tbe S-fcate of M,P. tfarougfa tiae District Magis trate Burg. u^ '0 -^- AEPEflL UM)EB SBGTION 574 OF THB CGDB GF GRE4IML PBOGEDXmS. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal Np. 549/1995 Ravishaiiker siagjh Vs. State of Mahdya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Single Beneh: Hoa^ble Jiistice Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmixkh. Shri P,S. Das, learaed counsel for the appeUaat. Shri Ashish Shxikla, Govt. Advocate/Addl. PubUc Prosecutor for the State. JUDGMBNT (Delivered on (35'-01-2006) PeiLDilip Rapsaheb Deshmukh, J. This appeal is directed agaiast the judginent dated 10.2.1995 deUvered by Shri T.K. Jha, VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Durg ia special case No. 243/1991 whereby fhe appetlaat was convicted under Section 354 of I,P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous miprisoninent for two years aad a fine^of Rs. 1,000/~ ao.d ia default of paynient of fiiie, to undergo siniple imprisonraent for three inonftis. It is not disputed tliat the appeUaat was a teacher ui vUlage Jori on th.e date of occurrence. The appellaat has, ui his examiaation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., admitted that Genda Bai P.W. 6, a student of class-V used to visit his hozise for tuition and used to sleep at his house aad retum. in the niorauig, next day, He has also adinitted tliat fhat Genda Bai P.W. 6 did not appear ia the exaDiiaation in fhat year. Briefly stated, fhe prosecution story is that ftie appellant used to caU girls studyiag ia Vth staadard for tuition at his '^ ^^ house. The girls after aftbendiag fhe tuition used to sleep at his house and retiini ftie next day. On 9.4.1991, Genda Bai, P.W. 6 had gone to fhe house of the appellant for tuition, The appeUaat was not present at the hoiise, so she slept wifh the ofher girls in fhe house of the appeUant. Soiaetiiaes at night, tiie appeUaat woke Genda Bai P.W. 6 aad tried to outrage her raodesty by asking her to reniove her underwear. There was a scufile ia which her underwear was tora, The appeUaiit did nofhiag fhereafter. Geuda Bai P.W, 6 slept at the house of fhe appellaat aad retunied hoine next day. Jaguram P.W, 2, fafher ofthe prosecutrix lodged a written complaint ou 5.5.1991 Ex. P-1 in P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg. After iavestigation, the appeUaat was prosecuted for aa offence under Section 376 (2) (b) read wifh Section-511 of I.P.C. The trial Judge after considermg fhe evidence led by the prosecution held that offence only under Sectiou 354 I,P.C. was proved agamst fhe appeUaat and convicted him thereunder aad sentenced the appeUant as aforesaid. Learaed Counsel for fhe appeUant raade a two fold arguinent. FirsUy, he contended that fhe evidence led by the prosecution fell short offhe requisite proofrequired for couvictiag the appellaat under Section 354 ofI,P,C. In the alteraative, he contended tha^t on tlie date of occurrence, the appeUaat was aa old niaa of 60 years aiid durmg tlie last 14 1/2 years, fhe appeUaat had already suffered a lot aad fherefore, the sentence awarded to fh.e appeUaiit should be adequately reduced. On fhe other haad, Shri Ashish Shukla, leamed counse:! for the State supported fhe impugned judgment, ^ -T' Having heard the rival contentions aad perusuig fhe record of Sessions Case Trial No. 243/1991, I find that the testioiony of the proseciitrix Genda Bai iaspires evidence V- f^ 7. aiid is whoUy iinrebutted ia cross--exaaiination. Siirprisiiig though, all tiie facts constitatmg fhe offence iinder Section 354 have einerged ia cross-exaniiiiation on leadiag questions being asked, It is true that Gangotd Bai P.W. 7 has not supported tiie prosecution story but this witaess was not present in. the house of the appeUant at the time of fhe occurrence. The testmiony of Genda Bai P.W. 6 cleaiiy shows fhat late at night, the appeUant caught hold of her hand aad dragged her to his room and asker her to reniove her iinderwear. The appeUaat also puUed her underwear which got tom, These facts cleaily show that the appellant outraged the modesty of Genda Bai P.W. 6, The trial Jzidge has rightly reUed on fhe evidence of Genda Bai P.W. 6 aad the conviction of fhe appeUaat under Section 354 I,P.C, is weU-founded. So far as the second Um.b of fhe arguraent advaiiced by the leamed counsel for tlie appeUaat is conceraed, it has soiae siibstaiice. On the date of occurrence i.e.on 9.4.1991, the appellaiit was aged 60 years. In the last inore thaa 14 1/2 years, tlie appeUaat has certaiiily szifferc-d niental agony and repentaiice. In my considered opiaion, therefore, awai'd of sentence of simple unprisQnnient for 3 inonths aad a fine ofRs. 1,000/~ would Bieet fhe ends ofjustice, In the result, tlie appeal is partly atlowed, The conviction of the appeUaat under Section 354 I,P.C. i^ inamtaiaed. However, ttie sentence of imprisoanient awarded is reduced to simple unprisoninent for fhree nionfhs. The araount of fiiie awai'ded is raaiataiiied. The appeUaat shall now szin'ender before tlie Chief Judicial Magistrate, Distt. Durg^ for zindergoiag sentence, Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya