IGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESEVAT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal Ecu> S11 0L1 995 j mrunuuunummmmuu Ww& % CFooooo58171 Tmsn‘am, aged about 2'7 years son of Tularam Sahu, resident of Mudhagaon, Police Station Bagbahra, Distt. Raipur (M.P.) VERSUS I APPELLAEL: K’éc‘USED ,1» RESPONDEET v State 0f Madhya Pradesh, JV‘ W“ CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTIOEE,37I§(2) . OF THE CODE OF CRIMINM PROCEDURE,1973. gin \IE THE H ” HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$6ARH AT BILASPUR Singia' Bench = Hon'bk Mr. Jus'riw Pri‘rinker Diwnkar Criminai Appeai No.754 of i995 APPELLANT Tulsimm, aged abouf 27 year-s Versus Sfafe of Madhya Pradesh RE$PONDENT Shri P;P. Sahu, counsel for- fhe appenanf. Shri Vivek Shama, PL for- fhe StaTe/non—applicanf. CRIMINAL APPEAL UEDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRINKINAL PROCEDURE J U D G M E N T (01 .07. 2010) ' Present appeal arises out of The impugned judgment and order dm‘ed 25.04.1995 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 121/1992 whereby convicting the uécus'ed/appellani for- ihe offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste dz. Seheduled Tribe (Preven‘iign of A‘rrocities) Ac? (for short “the Act') and sentencing him fo undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, 2. Brief foc‘is’ of fhe case are fhai‘ on 8.6.1992 oi about 6 pm FIR. (Ex.P—3) was lodged by prosecuirix (PW-3) alleging in it that on 7.6.1992 when she was sleeping in her Warandha in \ the night accused/appellant caught hold of her leg with an In'ien‘hon To oufrage her modesty and when she raised an alarm her brother-m law Heera Lal Tondon (PW—6) and Siya Rom (PW-4) came there and caught hold the accused/appellant H 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant gmlty, prosecution has examined as many as O7 witnesses in support of its case. ‘Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he :‘w4 denied The charges IeveHed against him and pleaded his innocence and false impiicuiian in the case. Apart from This, wi‘mess namely Kr'ipalsingh (DW—l) h&s aiso been examined by The defence in suppom‘ of ifs case. 4. Affer' hearing fhe parties The 1'r-iai ccur-i' has canvici‘ed and sentenced The accused/appeiianf for The offence as menTioned above. Hence This appeai. \r. 5: Heard counsei for The parTies and perueed The maTer-ia! avaiiabie on record inciuding judgmenT impugned. 6. Counsel for The appellanT mbmiTs ThaT Though in The F.I.R., prosecuTr'ix has alleged ThaT'The accused/appellanT / caughT hold of her leg wiTh an inTenTion To ouTrage her modesTy buT in The cour'T sTaTemenT she has noT made any such allegation and in absence of The any such specific allegaTion, accused/appellanT cannoT be convicTed for The offence under SecTion 3 (1)(xi) of The AcT. He submiTs ThaT The oTher maTerial wiTnesses have noT supporTed The case of The prosecuTion and have been declared hosTile. 7. On The oTher hand counsel far The sTaTe supports The impugned judgment 8. ProsecuTrix (PW—3) in her- ccur‘T sTaTemenT has sTaTed ThaT on The daTe of incidenT aT abouT 8—9 pm when she was sleeping in The Verandahalong wiTh her moTher-in-law Pancho Bai, her husband was noT aT home, accused/appellanT came There‘and had pulled her leg. She has sTaTed ThaT on accounf of pulling of her leg, she woke up and a'fTer geTTing annoyed, she v l raised an. alarm, on which her broTher—in-law Heera Lal Tondon (PW—6) and Siya Ram (PW-4) came There and They immediaTely s. \ caughT hoid ‘rhe accused/appellant She has stated Thar who!e night The accused/appeilan? was compeHed to sit there and second day report was Iodged. In ihe‘cr-oss—examina‘rion, sha has sfmed That despite her cries, acsused/appelmm did naf flee away and was standing fhere only. In 10—15 minu‘res, Hear-a La! Tendon (PW-6) and Siya Ram (PW-4) come were and fill Then he was smnding there. She has stated That after raising alarm, she went near the side of her mather—in-lawl wha was v sleeping on another cot. Chetu Ram (PW-1) & Sukhdas (PW-2) have not supported the prosecutian case and have been declared hostile. Siya Ram PW—4) - Brother-in—law of the prosecutrix has stated that after hearing the cries of the prosecutr‘ix, when he reached on the spot, accused/appellant was standing, he caught hold him and then on the second day, report was lodged. Bhagwat Singh (PW—5) - independent witness has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. anot her 9. Minute examination of the witnesses makes it clear that the statement of the prosecutrix becomes doubtful because in the FIR. she has stated that the accused/appellant caught hold of her leg with an intention to outrage her modesty whereas in her court statement she has not made any such allegation and has merely stated that when she was sleeping; ‘ her toe was pulled by the accused/appellant. 10. For convicting any person under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act there has to be evidence that the said act was done with an intention to dishonour or outrage the modesty. In the present case, these ingredients are missing. That apart, other vidence available on record is‘not very conciusive on which n \ ‘/L' e basis the accused/appeHam can be convicted for The offence under Section 3 (1)(xi) of The ACT. In fact the enfir'e stafemen‘!’ of the prosécutrix does nohins'pir'e fuH confidence of *his Cour? and in These circums‘rances The appellant is-‘ enfi‘rled for benefit of doubt 11. Consequenfly, ‘ihe appeal is allowed. Impugned judgmen‘l' dafed 25.4’1995 is hereby sel aside. Appellant is acquifled of fhe charge levelled against him. He is on bail. Boll bonds furnished by him sfand discharged. l Sd/w //‘ Witinker Diwakel‘ ’ i l Judge ,‘r/i w » i' Dix . , ”e , \ \