HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. 432/1998 Ramadhar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh _______________________________________________ For the Appellant : Shri R. Bari, Advocate. For the Resp./State : Shri Akshay Namdeo, P.L. _______________________________________________ Present: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Sinho _______________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (22/11/2011) Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction passed by Special Judge, Seoni in special case no. 54/96 vide impugned judgment dated 17/01/98 whereby being convicted u/s 354 of IPC and 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months. 2. The case in brief is that on 30/04/96 prosecutrix who is a member of scheduled tribes community at about 10.00 AM went to agricultural field to meet call of the nature. At that time appellant came and pressed her breast and thrown her on the ground. On hearing the hue and cry of prosecutrix PW-2 Brijlal who is a forest guard reached there. When appellant saw him he ran away. After returning of complainant's father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband she narrated the whole incident and lodged the Ex.P-1 FIR. She was sent for medical examination. PW-6 Dr. S.S. Naphade on examination found various abrasions and lacerated wound on her body and submitted report Ex.P-6. Completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. Shri R. Bari, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that prosecutrix has stated in her cross- examination that appellant has committed rape with her thus, she cannot be believed. 4. Prosecutrix who is a member of scheduled tribes community has specifically stated that when he went for nature's call appellant caught him and thrown her on the ground and tried to outrage her modesty. She further exaggerated that he also committed rape with her. PW-2 Brijlal, who is a forest guard has stated that when he heard hue and cry, he reached on the spot. PW-3 Ramsa husband of prosecutrix has stated that when he alongwith his parents came back her wife/prosecutrix narrated the whole incident thereafter,on the same day at about 19.45 hours named FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged against the appellant. 5. Prosecutrix has specifically stated in para 1 of examination-in-chief that she is a member of bhoi tribal community and further appellant is a member of Lodhi community. Lodhi caste not comes under the SC/ST category. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that prosecutrix has stated before the court below that appellant committed rape with her whereas Ex.P-1 FIR written by PW-5 J.P. Yadav was lodged just after 10 hours of the incident where she has alleged that appellant was trying to outrage her modesty and on the basis of exaggerated statement of prosecutrix court below has committed a mistake while convicting the appellant u/s 354 of IPC and 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 7. PW-1 prosecutrix has specifically stated that when appellant caught her and thrown on the ground and committing rape, she made hue and cry. PW-2 Brijlal, Forest Guard came and rescued her. In this regard PW-2 Brijlal, Govt. servant as well as a most important witness has specifically stated that when he heard hue and cry, he rushed towards the spot and found prosecutrix was lying on the field and appellant was naked and his hands were on the chest of prosecutrix. Thus, on bare perusal of statement of Brijlal it is clear that he reached on the spot on hearing hue and cry of prosecutrix and it is not a case where prosecutrix was a consenting party and independent witness PW-2 Brijlal reached on the spot by chance therefore, prosecutrix has made hue and cry. However, prosecutrix has exaggerated the incident that appellant has committed rape with her even then on the basis of statement of PW-1 prosecutrix and PW-2 Brijlal who reached on the spot after hearing hue and cry the court below has rightly believed them and convicted the appellant u/s 354 of IPC and 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Prosecutrix 8. Prosecutrix is a married lady and without any reason why she will falsely implicate the appellant. The aforesaid incident took place on 30/04/96 and the FIR was lodged on the same day at evening. Looking to the nature of offence, no lenient view can be taken against appellant. The court below has rightly convicted the appellant u/s 354 of IPC and 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Sentence also does not required any modification. 9. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance. (S.C. Sinho) Judge nn