?y. TEI THE HIGH COURT OF JODIGATUKE AT jaBAI.PTJR 3PONDENT2 CRIHXNAI. APPEAL N0. APPEI.I.ANTi OF 1996 . Shyaraanaiad^son of Goverdhan Pradhan, aged 52 years, r/o - Gram Pargala, P.S Basna, Ral.pur't V/S /State of Madhya Pradesh fchroa.gh P.S. Basna Distfc. Raipur. APPEAI. U/S 374(2) Cr.P.G. •• / •- '^ HIGHCOURT.OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 986/1996 APPELLANT Shyamanand Versus RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel fbrthe appellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta, P.L. for e State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (11.C3.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and orderdated 17.05.96 passed by Special Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 7/96 convicting thg accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of AtroGities) Act1989 (for short the "Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.3.1992 at about 6.30 p.m. FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 23 years at the relevant time alleging that on 21.3.1992 when she was sitting near her house along with her mother-in-law waiting for her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law, accused/appellant came there an^l asking for sexual favour he caught hold of her arm. Based on tbis FIR, offences under sections 354 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the Act were registered against him and after investigation, the ch^llan was filed by the Police on 20.4.1992 under sections 354 IPC and3(1)(xi)oftheAct. 3. So as to holdjhe accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has exammedas many as 08 witnesses in support of its case. Statement ^ofthe accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 ofthe Code of Crimmal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled ^' —2-- against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, one Hiradhar (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. lis 4 After hearingthe parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the prosecutrix was in the habit of falsely implicsting the villagers as earlier also she had made a complaint to the Panchayat against one Hiran Sai and when the compromise was arrived at between the two, the report was not lodged. He submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act is notmade out against the accused/appellant because there is no evidence available on record that while doing the act alleged, the accused/appellant was having the knowledge that she was belonging to the scheduled caste community. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that looking to the manner which the prosecutrix was subjected to harassment by the accused/appellant asking for sexual favour from her, conviction slapped by the Court below is fullyjustified. 7. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that she knew the accused/appellant and that he belongs to Golta Caste whereas her caste is Gada. According to her, on the date of incident when she was sitting sit her doorstep along with her mother-in-law waiting for her husbartd, father-in-law and brother-in-law who had gone to the place known as Basna to arrange for a diesel pump, accused/appellant came there and asked as to where her husband ha'd gone, onwhichher mother-in-law told him that he had gone to Basna. Thereafter, the accused/appellant left the place and after sometime he again came to her. This time also he asked whether her busband had got back or not. Then he offered her to disclose :som6thing towhich she told him .to do so with her mother-in-law. fhereafter, he is sajd to have asked her for sexual favour and •^^•H^. Bil caught hold of her arm. On this, she raised an alarm and some how got rid of him and then the accused/appellant went away. After arrival of her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law, she disclosed the incident to them but as herson was suffering fever, the reportcould not be lodged on the same day. She admits that the village Kotwar namely Sagunwati was residing just opposite her house but she had not disclosed the incident to her. She admits that one Hiran Sahi had also made the.similar gesture towards her for which a Panchayat meeting was called and as the compromise between them was arrived at, the report was not lodged. Bailwati Bai (PW-2) - the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix has made similar statement as that of the prosecutrix. However, this witness has stated the time of incident as 10:00 -11:00 a.m. Ram Lal (PW-3) - the husband of the prosecutrix has stated that on the date of incident when he, his brother and father returned home, the prosecutrix had narrated the entire incident.tohim.In paragraph No.5 of his deposition he admits that a Panchayat meeting was called against Hiran Sai where afineof Rs. 151/- was also slapped on him and it is for this reason the report was not lodged against said Hiran Sai. He has however denied the fact that on account of imposition of fineon said Hiran Sai he had lodged the false report against the accused/appellant just to get money. In paragraph-6 of his deposition he admits that the allegation as made by the prosecutrix against Hiran Sai was that he wanted to have physical relations with his wife. He further states that.two reports were lodged - one by him and one by his wife. However, the record reveals onlyone report i.e. theone lodged bythe proseeutrix. Arkit (PW-4) - the father-in-law of the pros&cy<hx has stated that the prosecutrix had informed him that the accused/appellant had caught hold of her hand. He however admits'that on the complaint of the prosecutrix against one Hiran Sai the Panchayat meeting was called. Shyam Lal (PW-5) - the brother- in-law of the prosecutrix has stated that he was informed by his motherand the-prosecutrix about the incident. Mani Lal (PW-6) has, notsupported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Bftasker (PW-7) has stated in his evidence that he had seen the prosecutrix ahd her mother-in-law running away. However,this •:^^i'";;•.''' '•<> '.•,^"""~^. ly 'y 4? —Lf— witness is said not to have seen the incident. R.K. Singh (PW-8) is the Investigating Offieer who has supported the case of the prosecution. Heeradhar (DW-1) has stated in his evidence that a Panchayat meeting was. called on the complaint made by the prosecutrix against one Hiransai but after imposition of certain fine, compromise was arrived at between the two. 8. Close scrutiny of the matenal available on record goes to show that earlier also the proSecutrix had made a complaint against one Hiransai alleging almost the same thing as in the case in hand and after imposition of fine of Rs. 151 the matter was compromised between them and no report against him was lodged. The record further shows that the stafement of the prosecutrix and her mother- in-law are somewhat contrary to each other because according to the prosecutrix the incident had taken place in the nightat about 9 p.m. whereas according,Jo .her-mother-in-law the time of incident is 10-11 a.m. Secgndly, the prosecutrix herself has stated that the house of village Kotwar namely S^igunwatiis situated just opposite her house but none of her family members had disclosed the incident to her which normally does happen in the villages if the offences of such nature take place. This apart, the prosecutrix kept quiet for two days and the report came to be lodged by her on 24.3.1992 thoughthe incident had taken place on 21.3.1992. Looking to all these things, the possibility of false implication of the accused/appellant for the sake^of monetary benefits cannot be ruled out. The record also does not go to show that while doing the act alleged, the accused/appellant was having an intentionto insultor humiliate ttife prosecutrix knowing that she was belonging to Scheduled.Caste Community and in these circumstances it would not be:safe for this Court to convict him under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act: Likewise, the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegatipn maele against the accused/appellant under Section 354 I.P.C. beyond alj reasonable doubts. 9. . In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt -^-- and that being so the accused/appellant is entitled to have the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Jadge 'n- •• /