HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR’ Criminal Agpeal No 339 of 1996 ‘- APPELLANT: I Jltendra Slngh Blharl .S/o Late \* ’ , ' Nageshwar Slngh aged about 42 years R/o FauJI Nagar Jamul Distt Durg M P (now C G ) Versus 'v RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh (now State 0f " " Chhattlsgarh) though P S Durg {Cnmlnal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Cnmmal Procedure 1973} Present Mr Uttam Pandey, counsel for the appellant Mr Ashlsh Gupta Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent Smqle Bench Hon’ble Mr T P Sharma,J ' ‘ ORAL JUDGMENT (29-7-2010) 1 Challenge 1n this appeal ts to the Judgment of conwctlon & order of sentence dated 20 1 1996 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessrons Judge ’ Durg In Specral Sessrons Trial No 14/95 whereby & whereunder whrle' ‘ I acqurttrng co accused Shankar Slngh of the charge under Sections 354 , 323 of the lP C & 3 (1) (XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled . Tribes (Prevention of Atrocrtres) Act 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) learned y Addrtlonal Sessrons Judge convrcted the appellant under Sections 354 & a 323 of the i P C and sentenced hrm to undergo R l for one year & pay""r‘- ‘l' frne of Rs 2 000l- In default of payment of fne to further undergo R i for ' two months and to undergo R I for srx months & pay fne of Rs.1 ,000/ , In default of payment of' fne to further undergo R I for one month ‘ respectively However learned Additional Sessmns Judge has acquitted ‘ ‘ the appellant of the charge under Section 3 (1 ) (XI) of the Act 2. ConVIctIon Is Impugned on the ground that Without any cogent and - reliable eVIdence the trial Court has conVIcted & sentenced the appellant and thereby committed Illegallty ’ p ’ 3L3 Case of the prosecution In brief Is that on 28 1 95 at about 8 a m when“ . m: the prosecutrlx (PW-1) was coming back to her house from the ground fafter answering the call of nature the appellant caught hold of her left :hand and also caught hold of her breast on which she pushed him At the ‘ ' 2 Itimé‘ of incident her bangles’were brdken and injury was caused to‘‘her (PW 2) The appellant came near the house of the prosecutnx also and ' wrlst She came to her house and narrated the Incrdent to Yuvraj Verma. assaulted Yuvraj Verma Thereafter the prosecutnx went to the Police l Station and lodged report vrde Ex P-1 Spot map was prepared Vlde Ex P-2 The prosecutnx was sent for medical examrnatron Vlde Ex P-3 a V‘ She was exammed by Dr R D Sharma (PW 7) vrde Ex P—7 who found " ‘t've abrasrons over her left elbow Jornt and forearm Contusrons were found over left gluteal area left thigh and left leg Yuvraj Verma (PW 2) ' was also examined Vide Ex P-8 by Dr R D Sharma (PW 7) who found“ V. contusion and lacerated wound over right parietal area and below the ear H Statements of the wrtnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr P C After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before s ‘ the Court of Sessions Judge Durg from where learned Additional” Sessrons Judge received the case on transfer for trlal ln order to prove the gUIlt of the accused the prosecution has examined I y as many as seven wrtnesses The accused were exammed under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the Circumstances): appearing against them pleaded Innocence and false Implication V After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties learned Additional ‘ Sessrons Judge whrle acqurttlng co-accused Shankar Smgh of the charge under Sections 354 323 of the lP C & 3 (1) (Xi) of the Act and the-1" ’appellant herein of the charge under Section 3 (1) (Xi) of the Act * ' l convrcted & sentenced the appellant In the aforesaid manner . ‘l have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the judgment and I ‘ record of the trlal Court Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that charge for the‘ " 7‘1. ‘foffence punishable under Section 354 of the l P C Is easy to make but _difficult to rebut The prosecution Is reqUired to prove the case beyond all I I V ‘ ‘V reasonable doubts by adducmg cogent eVIdence In the present case -‘ ' V‘eVIdence of the prosecutnx (PW-1) Yuvraj Verma (PW 2) and the F l R U j ‘ IEx P-1 are self-contradictory and full of contradictions These statements v . . and documents are not safe to rely for conVIction of the appellant under. y Sections 354 & 323 of the l P C In the present case alleged injured \wnnass Yuvraj Verma (PW-2) has not lodged any F l R . V . , _j j ‘j '. 1 ._ z ‘ . . . 9. On the other hand, learned State cbunsel opposed the appeal and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the trial Court has rightly_ convicted & sentenced the appellant. r‘r 10.ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, i have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution? 11.This is a case of commission of offence of use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman and causing simple hurt to another person Yuvraj Verma (PW-2). 12.As per the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), whilew she was coming, from the ground the appellant met her and told her that he want to commit rape on her (Wt-f gem) and then he caught hold of her and removed her . l ‘; sari. Her bangles were broken on the spot. She pushed him and went to“ ‘ . her house. After reaching to her house, she shouted for help. The appellant came to her house also and dragged her from her house and l assaulted her. When Yuvraj Verma (PW-2) & Deenbandhu came to save her, the appellant assaulted Yuvraj with urn over his head and caused l lacerated injury. 13.However, as per the evidence of Yuvraj Verma (PW-2), when he was present in his house, the prosecutrix came and narrated the, incident and also shouted for help on which he came out from the house, at that time, co-accused Shankar Singh was holding hands of the prosecutrix and. when he tried to intervene a'nd rescue the prosecutrix, appellant Jitendra Singh assaulted him with stick over his head. Both the accused assaulted the prosecutrix also. 14.But as per the promptly lodged F.l.R. Ex.P-1, the appellant caught hold of the breast of the prosecutrix, but has not removed her sari. The prosecutrix came to her house and narrated the incident to Yuvraj Verma (PW-2), and then the appellant assaulted Yuvraj Verma. As per the F.l.R., the appellant has not assaulted the prosecutrix, co-accused Shankar has not caught hold of her and her. sari was not opened/removed H p by the appellant. As per the evidence of the prosecutrix, the appellant has assaulted Yuvraj Verma with urn — a metal pot for keeping water. However, as per the evidence of Yuvraj Verma (PW-2), appellant Jitendra Singh has assaulted him with stick. “€xgzw’?‘ ‘ 15 EVIdence of the prosecutrlx (PW-1) Yuvraj Verma (PW-2) and the F I R ’ V Iodged by the prosecutrlx are self contradictory and there Is material . 1., . I contradiction between their ewdence and the F i R The accused has’ taken defence that he has been falsely Impllcated on account of enmity VConSIdenng the factum of enmity and contradictory statements It us H dlff‘cult to hold that the appellant has used cnmlnal force Wl L t .' voutrage the modesty of the prosecutnx and has also assaulte Yuvraj .Verma .16.,ln the present case, the. prosecution was; under obligation to proVe its” " ’case beyond all‘reasonable doubts by adducing cogent evidence but the evrdence adduced on behalf of the prosecution Is not of sterling quality or suffcrent for drawrng defnlte conclusmn of gurlt While convrcting the 1 appellant the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid evrdence and V its ewdentrary value and thereby committed Illegallty 17 Consequently, the appeal Is allowed ConVIction & sentences Imposed a V upon the appellant under Sections 354 & 323 of the l P C are hereby set > asrde and he Is acquitted of the said charges He be set at liberty at ' once if not reqwred in any other case Fine amount if paid shall bev‘w‘v-"L‘ i 1% wfiv . refunded tothe appellant ' ‘ . i ' l ‘ l Sd/- l ' T.P.Sharma a.avqgea >xe ck