0000058414 IM/Ill IIHIIHIJIHIIHHIII m‘‘ CONVICTION U/s 3(1)(ii) /§/g 9) , Sehedule Caste & Hieg mmcmm .ua-ua-w E? Shpkmwa'amui.&%%r( Cheduie rlpe muswwww @yct . 7/) 59) X CR. APPEAL U/S CRIMINAL PROCEDcRE z IN THE HIGHHCOURI‘ GF MADHYA P-RADLSH AT JABALPUR Q '/’ a%@a§ APPELLANT : rAja-y Gupta s/o’iijangli iDrasad cr. Appeal No. U Mfg; /95 aged about 22 y’rsrf R/o Vlllage- :(urra, P S . Rajpur, g” Tan . ambucapurf' D}stt. Sarguja . (M.P.) VS. SENTENCE £ RJ. for 6 mon‘E'hS‘w‘ i and Fine of. Rs 1000/- in dafault furtner RJ. for 2 months° i. 374 (2) OF THE cbDE OF §§ §4“‘$iw¢yvwd_ : NbN APPmIeANT : ”gThe state of MoP. P reventlon of At rocities J éMnwwn «\, a v e pr sent appeal. arises Ou of the Eugment and Order ated 04.081995 passed by 1s‘ Addétiena; Ses$i0ns Judge/Swag! (Judge, Ambikapur in “ Speciai Criminai Case VO 43i1£9§2 canvmtmg the accused/appeilant under $eci'ion: 31 (‘:) (X!) 9f ihe Scheduied Caste and ' Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentencing him to undefgo rigorous imprisonment for six months and ‘oay fine of Rs 1009 m defa 2i of payment of tine fo further Jndergo rigorous impnsonment for two m ntbs l y x § § K I 2. he bnef facts of the case are than on 0! 07 1092wFiR :x P 4 was fodged av oroseoutnx (PW 3) a; eomg in if ”mat on tnat day at about 8 a m when me was going To bnna sow-dung, the accused/appeaanf came there on bfoy {e anci tofd net to (3o te the wouse of v1 tage Assnetant Unon refuse he shy ea her caugnt no aer biouse and began to drag as e resuit of which her btouse was torn She has further stated that the apoe tart had aso pr seed her breast With bad mtemon After mesttgatfon choliah was fti d on 1407 1Q92 for the offences under sections 354 ”DC 8: 3 (1) ( ) of the Act and on 25 09 1993 charges were framed for the same offence 8. B'y the impugned judgment the learned triai Court has convicted th r accuseolappettant for theoffence under section 3 (1) (Xi) of Act, howeve Th t d h e“ r: -2— in ‘respect of Section 354 IPC the appellant has been acquitted on the gmund of campromise between the parties. Hence the present appeal. 4. ln order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant the prosecution has examined O4 witnesses. Statement of the accusedfappetlant was also recorded under $eotion 313 of the Code o: Cr mine! Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled againet him and pleaded his innocence and false lmpllcatlon in the case. g 5. w ‘Hea ccunse‘ for the parties and perused the maierial avatlabie on reoord includin the ludgment under challenge £ 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant sub’mlte that present ls a eaee of fal e implication as on 7 7 1992 a prior report Ex D 1 was lodged by the ap eliant against five persons namely Rablndra Singh Sanjay Singh R pnt Singh, Gite and Champa for the offences under sectlone 147, 148.7 294 341 323 oO6 read with section 34 IPC as a counter blast false re ort has been lodged against the appellant in which the prosecutrix has been used as a tool by all those five persons against him it has been omitted that the prosecutrix was working as a servant in the house of ail 1 se persons aoainst whom the report was lodged oy the a cused/apoellant and that ls why, entire fabricated, concocted and false c se has been lodoed againSt the aopellant He further suhmlts that, the pror report lodged by the appellant Ex D 1 has been duly proved by K tut S Khan (PW—4) the lnvestigating Officer He further submits that the rwo so called eye-Witnesses namely Ramprit Sinoh (PW-1) and Sanlay Singn (PW 2) have not supported the prosecution case and have turred hostile L stly it has been argued that ultimately the appetlant and the prosecutrix h ve compromised the matter that is why the offence under section 354 IPC is compounded but~2as offence under sectlon 3 (1) (Xi) of the Act ls not compoundahle, the court below has convicted the accused/appellant. ?. ”On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State submits that the i pugned judgment is in accordance with law and therefore no, in erte‘rence wlth the sam ls calle or. £ . i l l g e d f -3— 8. Frbm the evidence it is clear that against the accused/appenan’t the FIR wasl lodged on 7.7.1992 vide Ex. P-4 at 11 am. whereae priq to that on the eame day, a reportwwas iodged by the appeimnt vide wEx.D-1 at about 9. 0 am. which has been admitted by the investigating officer (PW— 4). tt s further relevant to note that the two star wétneseee o? the prosecution nameiy Ramprit $ingh (PW-1) and Sanjay Sing?! (WV—2) were named as accused by the appettani Ennis HR Ex. D-t and the prosecutrix {PW—3) Ias working in their house. it is thus ciear that possibittty of faise tmptica‘t' net the apoetant cartr‘et be ruteti out. FUttnermore Ramorit Qinoh PWt) awd Saniay Smgh (PW-2 have not supported the proeecu Ion case and have been dectered host te The another Important aspect f the case is that durrng the pendency or the tnai the proeecutrtx has co promised the matter wxth the appettant as a resutt of wnlcn he was acquitte of the offence under’section‘ 354 IPC. Considering the totality of the cas in particutar the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis %of the e idence adduced by the prosecution itwiti not be sate tor this court to convict the appeitant for the offence under section 3 (Lt-(Xi) of the Act. i 9. Ahpeat, as a resutt, is attowed and the judgment tmougned is set aside Appetiant is acquitted of the charge ievetied against him. He is aiready onvbett. H's bait bonds stand discharged, The tine amount it deposit d by the ppetiaht he refunded to him a .