^: HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKARJ, J Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2000 ApDellant Mangal Singh Respondents Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh through SHO, Kharsiya, Dist. Raigarh. POSTFORPRONOUNCEMENTOF JUDGMENT Sd/- ' '^-8-2069"^;~ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Appellant: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.616 of 2000 Mangal Singh son of Mohan Kumhar, aged about 35 years, occupation Kumhari, R/o. Panjhar, P.S. Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh, MP. Veraus Respondent: State of M.P. now Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh, M.P. (Criminal appeal u/S 374 (2) ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure 1973) SB: Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, J. Present: • Mr. Surfraj Khan, counselfortheappellant. Mr. Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 2o-(t,-8-2009) 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1-2-2000 passed by the Special Judge, Raigarh in Special Trial No. 10 of 1999,whereby learned Special Judge convicted the accused/appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.l. for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26-5-1998 when the prosecutrix Janki Bai was returning from the village pond after taking bath, the appellant, on the way, caught hold her from back side and used force with intention to outrage her modesty. The prosecutrix in order to save herself ran away from the spot and informed the incident to her family members immediately. Thereafter, on 27-5-1998 the prosecutrix lodged the written complaint at Police Station, Bilaspur (Harizan Cell), but the Station. House Officer, suggested her that since the place of incident t'llBir" ."'t" y ., . ^••7^;.^ "^^ '^ .. '''^[i :;»-B.>, 1 i' j :l--^y •1U| falls within the jurisdiction of Raigarh District, the written complaint can be lodged at Police Station (Harizan Ce!l), Raigarh Dist. Hence.on 31-5- 1998 the report (Ex.P/2) was lodged bythe prosecutrix at Police Station Kharsiya, Raigarh Dist. which was sent to ST/SC Cell, Raigarh for investigation. During investigation, caste certificate Ex.P/4 was seized by Police inwhich caste of the prosecutrix wasshowntobe "Gada". 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Special Judge. The learned Special Judge fram^d charges against the accused/appellant under Section 354 of the IPC and 3 (i) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of the Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant abjured the guilt. 4. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge against the appellant, examined six witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C , in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, learned Special Court convicted and sentenced the appellantas mentioned in paragraph-1 ofthe judgment. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. On the basis of material available on record, the special court ought to have acquitted the appellant. The special court erred in holding that the evidence' of PW/1 Janki Bai was not required any independent corroboration and sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. The Special Judge failed to see that the allegation under Section 354 ofthe IPC is very easy to make but it is very difficult to rebut. So, independent corroboration requiresfor holding the appellant guilty. Learned counsel further submits %., 1 '.7 i that there was delay of five days in lodging the FIR which clearly shows that the same was very well drafted and typed just to implicate the appeltant and in view of the material available on record, false implication due to previous enmity cannot be ruled out. Lastly learned counsel submits that considering all the above facts, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges. ~ 7. In oppugnation, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State argued the matter in support of the judgment and findings arrived at by the trial Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 1 have perused the records ofthe special Court as also the impugned judgment. 9. PW/1 Janki Bai, the prosecutrix stated in her deposition that on the date of incident while she was returning from the village pond aftertaking bath, the accused/appellant coming from back side tried to outrage her modesty by catching hold of her hands and removing her saree: Anyhow, the prosecutrix got herself from the clutch of the accused/appellant and reached her house where she narrated the incident to her family members. She along with her husband went to Police Station, Harizan Thana, Bilaspur to lodge the report where she was informed that the incident fell within the jurisdiction of Raigarh Dist. Therefore, she lodged the report at Raigarh. The report submitted at Bilaspur, Harizan Thana is Ex.P/1 and the FIR registered at Police Station Kharsiya is Ex.P/2. The prosecutrix was cross examined at length but she remained unrebutted and consistent on material point. 10. Onperusal ofthe testimony of'Dukalu Ram (PW/2), the husband ofthe prosecutrix, it is apparent that he has corroborated the version of the prosecutrix and stated that onthe date of incident her wife returned from '1' I Ig '; :$.,- the village pond after taking bath to the house and narrated the story to the family members whereupon the incident was informed to the village Sarpanch and on his advice the matter was reported to the Police. In cross examination of this witness no important contradiction or omission could be pointed out by the defence due to whichthe testimony of this witness can be disbelieved. 11. PW/3 Bhagat Ram, the elder brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, initially turned hostile and not supporte'd the case of prosecution but when the leading questions were put to him, he admitted the suggestions given by the prosecution and stated that he heard about the incidentwhile it was being narrated to Dukalu Ram(PW/2) bythe prosecutrix. 12. PW/4 R.N. Shandilya, the Additional Tahsildar admitted to issue the certificate (Ex.P/4) to the prosecutrix but in his cross examination, he admitted that Ex.P/4 was not the caste certificate. It was domicile certificate issued to the prosecutrix which was converted into caste certificate at "B to B" part and the same was not done by him. He further admitted that the caste certificate was issued in different proforma. 13. PW/5 A. Sai Manohar, Additional Superiritendent of Police, the then SDO(P) Kharsiya admitted to receive the case diary of Crime No. 155 of 1998 for investigation and stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the aecused/appellant and seized the caste certificate Ex.P/4 of the prosecutrix. PW/6 Ramesh Kumar Pandey, the Inspector stated to registerthe FIR on the basis of the oral report given by the prosecutrix. Thus, PW/5 and PW/6 corroborated the version of PW/1 and PW/2. 1s 14. DW/1 -Chamand Das has stated in his deposition that he knows the accused/appellant Mangal Singh, prosecutrix - Janki Bai and Dukalu Ram. Dukalu Ram has not stated anything in the Panchayat about the incident took place with Janki Bai. He also stated that the character of Mangal Singh is good in village, but on this very ground the statements of Janki Bai and Dukalu Ram cannot be discarded, therefore, the statement of the defence witness is of no value. f<. 15. Having considered all thefacts 6nd circumstances ofthe case and in view of the testimonies of the witnesses, the version of the prosecutrix (PW/1) has clearly been corroborated by all the prosecution witnesses. There are some discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix and her husband (PW/2)which are not material in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. The caste certificate produced by the prosecutrix has not been proved by cogent evidence of PW/4. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, on perusal of the deposition of the prosecutrix, it is clear that the written complaint (Ex.P/1) was lodged on 27-5-1998 at Police Station (Harizan Thana) Bilaspur whereas the incident took place on 26-5-1998 and since Police Station (Harizan Thana) Bilaspur, has no jurisdiction, the written complaint (Ex.P/1) was advised to lodge at Police Station, (Harizan Thana) Kharsiya, Raigarh Dist., which was within time, therefore, the question of delay in lodging the FIR does not arise and the delay has rightly been explained, The testimony of the prosecutrix is also corroborated by PW/6 the writer of FIR. The prosecutrix has already stated in her depositionthat she lodged report (Ex.P/1). 16. For the foregoing, l am of theconsidered opinion that the Special Judge has rightly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 354 of the IPC and it does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or irregularity warranting interference in this appeal. -^ Raju 17. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. _——"^-^^,--- 1 R.N. Chandrakar ; Judge