*» y w •• ./'; ^^ \YV HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. h/lr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2000. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Tilakram son of Kanhaiyalal Sen. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh). Shri M.K. Baeg counsel for the appellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for the respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (07.01.2010) This appeal is directed againstthejudgmentdated 21.12.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 159/1998 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to payfine of Rs. 1000 in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty days. By the same judgment the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Case ofthe prosecution in brief is that on 18.12.1998 a written report (Ex. P-1) was made by the prosecutrix (PW-1) alleging that on that day at about 9.30 a.m. when she was waiting for the bus in the Bus Stop to go to Baloda. Bazar for taking examination, the accused/appellant came over there and caught hold of her hand with an evil intention. Based on this written report FIR (Ex. P-2) was registered on the same day. 3. So as to hotd the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 03 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code ">' •8seo luessjd sqt ui souajep s^e\ 0} isnf speui useq SBL| SLUBS 94} pue auo peteouqej e eq 0} sjeadde xuinossojd sqi ^o jeqtojq eqi Aq }jod8j PS||BO-OS teqi pue SSSU)!M p9jo}ni e eq o\ sjesdde SL) se a|qei|8jun A]]OL)M si SSSUIIM eoue.iep 9L]i ieqt siiLuqns 3|-| •|Buinboe ia6 0} lueaiei^ue Aue uiiq eAi.B lou seop tUB||edde/pasnooB eqi Aq psieiiiiunq ussq seq |J!B BunoA e ifoiqM ui jeuueiu 94) leqi siiaiqns pue psuBnduji }U9LuBpnf 941 syoddns steig/iuapuodsej s^ JQ^ losunoo pueq jsqio sqi UQ 'Z •leuinboe JQ^ p9|t!lU3 si }ue||9dde eqt uoitnoesojd eqi Aq psuiaiExs useq sey sseufiM tuepuedepui ou se 'uiiq 01 Buipjooov 'pnoo iue)3dLUOo sqi Aq peuinboe useq 3AG4 Asq) 'LueAL|ssqpey jaqiojq siq pue pssnooe sqi isuieBe pa6po| SBM yu sq} sjeqM sseo luenbesqns sqi u! teqi siiaiqns 8|-| •£-a'xg si jope||oo loutsia 9L|} ejo^aq spBLu (61)} PUB g-Q 'xg si leAeLiouej aqi ejopq epeai lui.eidLuoo sq^ p Adoo '[.-Q 'xg si tuieiduioo pies sqi ^o Adoo pue (z-N\d) JBLun» qsoiueg A|SLUBU xuinoesojd 34} p jsqfojq eqi tsuieBe ijodej e epeiu peq 04 )eqi peieis A||eouo6eteo SELJ oqM (l.-MQ) n4ES ie|uo|-| ^o eouspiAQ 041 0104 JBSIO sj pe^ siq( }eq} siiiuqns 9H -Lusqi LUOJ} Aauoiu BuiqqejB ueqi pue eseo jsq}o 341 jo aLuos ui suosjed sq} Bupoiidui! A|as|ej p iiqeLi sij} ui si lUE]|adde aq^ p A|!LUBJ teqi stituqns tue||9dde 04} jo^ issunoQ -g •peuBndLui iueLu6pnf 9L)t Suipnioui pjooej uo 9|qB]!eAB leueieiu SL)I pssmed pue ssiijed aqi jo.t issunoo pjee|-f •g •aAoqe peuoiiueiu se sousyo eqi joj tue||8dde / pssnooe Q{\} peousiuas pue pspiAuao SBL| ijnoo \BU} 94} saiyed eqi 6uuBei| jeyv 'fr •sseo s}\ p yoddns ui sous^ep SL|( Aq peuiiuexe OS|B SBM (|,-/v\a) nLieg |e|uoH euo 'yede siqi -aseo sqi ui uoiteoiiduui 9s|e^ pue ooueoouu! siq p9pea|d pue aiiq isuieBe ps]]9Aa| seBjeqo aqi peiuap 94 yoiqM ui. sjnpaoojd IBUILUUQ jo ;rl ^ -2- 8 . From the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) it appears that on the fateful day when she was waiting for the bus at the bus stop to go to Baloda Bazar, accused/appellant came there and asked to accompany her and when she refused him for it, he had caught hold of her hand with bad intention. Thereafter, she somehow managed to escape from the dutches of the appellant, went to her house and informed her brother about the incident. The prosecutrix has further stated that as she had to appear in the examination, she had gone to Baloda Bazar and after the examination was over, a written report Ex. P-1 was made by her on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P-2) was lodged. She has further stated that on her report the accused/appellant was arrested but after coming out of the jail, he along his two brothers and father had again come to her house where the appellant and his brother had and pressed her breast and also that of her sister who at the relevant time was watehing TV and also tore her cloths. Statement of the prosecutrix is duly supported by her brother Santosh Kumar (PW-2) and P.K. Singh, SDO(P) (PW-3) and nothing has been brought about by the defence to discredit their evidence. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment convicting the appellant under section 354 IPC and acquitting him ofthe charge u/s 3(1) (xi) ofthe Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is just and proper and does not call for any interference in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed. ——— .\ Sd/- 1 pritinker Diwaker i Judge