HW,W,W anasr m (W) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J The appellant has p ferfed this appeal against the judgment dated 15.5.1996 p ssed in Special Case No. 12/96 whereby the learned Speci 1 Court, Jaéhpurnagar District Raigarh has convicted the a pellant under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI 19 days and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default thereoif, to further undergo S.I. for one h l g o? n XIaHC 78 WW,W,W am m (W) i ammm‘ WWW WWW a. WW13W émfcmm year. The appellant was also of the Scheduled Castes 85 Atrocities) Act. However, lea appellant of the aforesaid cha 2. ‘ prosecuted under Section 3(1)(1 1) Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of rned trial Court has acquitted the rge . Learned counsel for allegation made against the a prosecutrix had gone to Ville in conneetion with some o requests of the appellant, she Thereafter, the appellant tr towards the prosecutrix and house, he caught hold of her narrated the incident immedi: disclosed it to Kanchandevi a only on l8. 1.1996 in police st 3. Learned counsel for the the appellant is in governm served the jail sentence im} amount. on record it would be evident 1: as the incident is alleged to 1996, however, report of the sgarne was lodged on 18th January 1996 and the explanation giv n by the prosecutrix for delay in W m . a1 200 '.he appellant submits that the ppellant is that on 15.1.1996 the ge Patratoli, Where the appellant e Panchayat Ghampatoli resides, fficial Work. On the repeated accompanied him to his house. ed to make indecent advances While she was going out of his hand and started dragging. She itely to Secretary of Patratoli who lso. However, report was lodged ation Jashpurnagar. lwho is secretary of the Villag' accused/ appellant submits that ent serv1ce and he has already )osed on his and paid the flne He further submits: that from th%ev1dence available hat it’s a case of false implication have occurred on 15m January W XI-{iC—78 @ W m ww: 200 mm (W) WWW WM§‘WW mmm 3 WWW—q? am‘fhnm lodging th6 report is not incing as she has stated tha because she was busy in Pa chayat work, therefore, she could not lodge the report prompt . He further submits that there was a dispute between the rosecutrix, her husband and the appellant in connection with ransaction of Rs.900/—. Referring ‘ to paragraph 5 of the state ent of prosecutrix and further, u paragraph 4 (wrongly mentio ed as ‘4’, in fact it is ‘6’) of cross- examination of PW-5 Viraj M nj, husband of the prosecutrix, it ‘is submitted that there was ome dispute between husband of the prosécutrix and the appellant in connection with transaction of money and y because of this grudge, the prosecutrix after due deliber tion with her husband and one Daud of the Village has imp icated the appellant in the said offence. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported impugned judgme t of the trial Court. 5. I have heard learned ounsel for the respective parties and perused the material a ailable on record including the impugned judgment. Q .I.R. of Ex.lg71 lodged by the prosecutrix it is observed th t the incident is stated to have k occurred on 15th January 19§6 at about 10’00 hours whereas i report of the same was lodge on 18th January 1996 at about 6. From perusal of the ..... 7 l c v t l l g I XIJHC-78 HW,W,W i WT m W“Ia 200 mam-m (W) m$m mm mmm WWiwW 4, *Wm. 15.40 hours in the police ‘station Jashpurnagar and reason assigned for delay in lodging the report is that the prosecutrix was busy in Panchayat affairs. In the report the complainant has stated that she had. gone in connection with Panchayat work to village Patratoli where she met Gram Sevak who asked ‘ V ‘ her to accompany him up to his house and after reaching his house he asked her to sit on his bed, on which when she sat on A the chair, he started eve teasing. When the prosecutrix was about toicome out of his himse, he caught‘hold of her hand and started dragging. Hox‘vever, she somehow managed to come out. Whereas in her d ‘position before the Court she has made material improvement over the version she has given in her F.I.R. with respect to equests of the appellant that he wanted to have sexual int rcourse with her and he would satisfy her sexually. She ha also stated that she narrated the incident to Kanchandevi w o has been examined as PW—3. though this fact has not bee recordedin the F.I.R. 7. PW—3 Smt. Kanchande i has also stated that on the date of incident the prosecutrix c me to her house and complained against the accused of eve easing. This witness has further stated in paragraph 2 of he statement that it was opinion of the villagers that Lili Minj h s falsely implicated the accused. PW-5 Viraj Minj, husbandiof the prosecutrix, has stated in paragraph 4 (wrongly mentidned as ‘4’, in fact ‘6’) of his cross— i\ 1 11mm m 2w WW (13W) wwwféwm 5 %§a¢§mm “ wmwfaWt-x examination that it is C(§rrect to say that there was some dispute betweeri the accused and himself regarding transaction of money taken for digging the well. He had discussed with his , Wife about the case and‘it 1s correct to say that he and his wife fon the advice of one Daud, had foisted this case on the ‘ . accused. : u 8. Thus, from the evidence available on record taking into A consideration the fact that :he report of the incident was lodged after three days and' explanation given by the prosecutrix for delay is not convincing and further considering the improvements made by he prosecutrix during her Court statement and also consid ring the admission of her husband that they in consultation ith one Daud had foisted afalse case on the accused/appel ant, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has utterl failed to prove the case against the accused/appellant and as uch, the impugned judgment of the trial Court by'which the pellant has been convicted under Section 354 of the IPC can ot be sustained. 9. In the result, the a peal is allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 3 4 and sentenged passed thereon, are set aside. He is acquitte of all the charges. g/ 8 Dhirendra Mishra Judge , / ,