HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C^iminal Appe&l No. 12 / 94 APPLICANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Awadh Rsm, son of Gyanik Patel, s^ged about 18 years, resideiit of vfflage Nandgaon, PoUce Station Maliasaciuud, Distt. Raspur Thc Stote ofMariliya Pradesh ; APPEAL UNDERSBCmON 374(21 OF THE CODB OP CmMINAJL PR.OCEmjRE (SB :Hon*ble Bffir. T.P.Sharma, J.) Prcscnt:- Shri Dhccraj Kumar Wankhcdc on bchalfof Shri Ranbir ^ Singh Marhas, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy. Govt, Advocate forthe State. ORAL-CMRDBR (Passedoa 16/11/2009) Heanl. 1. By this appeal, the appeltent ha8 challenged the legalily and propriety offhejudgYnentofcoTiiviction<Rind otxlerofseTitence dtri. 21-12-93 passed by Special iJudge, Raipiir in Spectel Case No. 71/91, wherel^y and wlierennder leamed Special iliidge after holding the ^ppellant guilty for fhe oflfence piinfehable urider Section 3(1)(xi) ofthe S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of AtTOcifAes) Act, 1989 (for ^hort <the Act3) sentenced him to iindergo rigoroii?» i?nprisonment for mx niont^^. ProseciitioTTi hass notaddiiced any evidence to stiow l^hst the appellant has committed tTie ofFence on the groiind that pro^ecutrix is a member of Schediiled Caste and Coiirt below Thas not conisidered the evidence, which m not siifficient for convicting the appeal. 2. Brief fect^ for rlisposal of t.he case are; PW 1 Piinita Bai Tnember of ScTiediiled CaSite wflis collecting wood in ttie forest on 12-01-1991 at about 3.00 p.m, other witness PW 2 Jhulan Bai, PW 3 ilanki Bai were also collecting wood in diifferRnt place?i oy the forest Appellant c^me to proseciitrix PW 1 Piinita Bai, pressed her breast and fell down on the land. Pro^ecutrix @ -'2.- ^hoiited for her help, then tJInilan Bsi, Siibhadrai and eJanki reached to fhe spot at fhat time fhe appellant fled away finDm fhe ^ ^pot. D^irinig the coiirse of incidenit, her banigles were hrokeTi. She lodged the Pirst TnformatioTiReport befbre ttie Police Stetion, Mslia^amiind vide Ex.P/1 ^|)ot map ptiRpared hy Ex- P/2 & 3< Sbe was «entfor medical examination vide R?c.P/4. Her hroken hangles were sei7;ed vide Ex.P/5 froin ttie place ofincide.nt. After removing fhe bangles froni her same were recovered vide Rx.P/6. ^ Statements offhe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of fhe Code of Criminal ProcedurR (in short <tfCodeay). After completion ofthi^ petition charge-»heetwas filed hefore Spectel iJiidge, Raipiir. 3. Tn onler to prove the giiilt of the ^cciised/appeltoTit, the prosecution has exaYnined as many a» six witnesse^- Accii^d was al»o eyamined iinder Section 313 of the Code wTiere l^e denied the circiimstaTices appearing ag^inst Tiim and claiTned innocency and fhl$ie iynplication. After affbrding an opportiinily of Itiearing tn ttie parties, leamed Special Jiidge Tias coi-iyicted and sentenced tTie appellant as aforeinentioned. 4. T^eamed coiinsel for the partie^ are Tieard and jiidgment impiigned and orderofCourtbelowpeni^ed. 5. l^amed coiinsel for the appeltent vehemently argued tliat prosecution is required to prove t.he fact tliat oflfence lias heen coniynitteril by the accu^ed on the groiind of the ca»te of proseciitri5c biit in this case proseciition has not addiiced any evidence to sliow fhat offence Tias heen committe^^ appeltent on tTie ground offhe caste of the proseczitrix. Coiinsel for t1iie appellant fiirtTier argiied tliat at fhe tirne ofcominismori of oflFence tlie ^cciiised was aged about 18 yeai^, therefore, he is entitled forbenefit ofprobationi ofoffence Act 1958 m aceorda^ce wifh tTie provi^ions ofSection 360 oftTie Code. 6. On tlie otTier hand cminsel for the respondent oppose^ the petitiors. -3- 7. Tn orrier to appreciate ttie contentions ofthe parties; T hfsve eyammed fhe evirience addliiced by €he proseciation. 'The evidence addiiced on behalf of tl^e proseciition revealed that ofFence has not heeTi committed hy flie appellant on the groiind of tTie caste of pro^ecufcriix. P<W. 1 Piinite Bai prDseciitrix has deposed in her evidence t.hat.wMle Sihe wa»collecting wood in the tbrest appellant came near fhe place fhe iticident, he yress her breast and fell down tier in t}ie land and also tried to otterage her Tnodesly (IJJ^t lene laga) bangles were broken fhen »he sTioti'fed for lielp tl^en otlier witnesses iJanki, Siibhadra and iJhiilan c^Tne tlien tJhe appellant mn away. She lodged report broken bangles and bangles were setaed. Tn her deteiled cro«aexaTniTiatio;Ti she Tias denied tlie «iiggefttion t.hat she was ciitting tree stending on tlie land of appellant Other witne^ses have supported the stMetnent of prosecutrix and steted tliiat they were collecting wood in the forest and there wa« no fiield of tlie acciised m the forest. 8. Tlie statement. of prosecutrix is corroborated hy other independent witnesses she ^as lodged the report .same d^r by Rx, P/1 lier hroken bangles were sei7:ed by Rx- P/K. Appettant has not adduced any evidence to show thM proseczitrix was cutting ttie tree stending over the land of appellant or any other groiind ofiTnplication. 9. After appreciating tlie evidence ^vsil^ihle on recorci^ leamed Special thidge has amved fhat a finding fhat appellant has nsed ttie criminal coiirse with intent to oiitrage modlesly of the proseciitrix which i»piinistiahle iinder Section 3(T)(Ki) ofthe Act. Tn ahsence ofany evidence to show tTiat appellant h^s committed the offence on tliie groiind of tlie caste of pro^eciitrix^ conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) ofthe Act. is not mi^tainable under the law biit fhe prosecution Tias pnwed fhe case fbr fhe oflfence piinisTiahle iinder Section 354 ofthe Indian Panel Code incliided In the offence piintehahle iinder Section 3(1)(xi) offhe Act ^i ^ 10, Conseqiienfly ttie appeal te partly allowed. The appellant is acqiiitted of fhe cTiai^e of 3(1)(xi) of fhe Act and ^^nvi^ted iinder Section 354 ofthe Tndian Panel Code. Coiiisirilering the age of ^ppeltant at tlie titne of coniniissioni of oflFence, no pzsrpose woiild be served in sendmg fhe appeltent in ciiatody ^ter lapse of 16 ye^r^ of fhe incident Conseqiienfly, fhe appellsnt is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in defaiilt of payTnent of ftne he shall ftirtfher undeT^o rigormis iniprisontnent for fibur montha. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine aTno^int within 30 days froni tod^y heforR the trial Courl;, Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge y-