COURT W CHH.4mS6ARH AT B!!-A§BUR Criml 110" Sudhir Kumar son of Pakluram Karsli, caste &hobi, aged 28 years, ('esicient of 5apos, PS Dabhra, Distt.BiSsispur, at present r/o P''imary Heatth Centre, Chhal, PS Chhai, &istrict ftalgar-h, t (Now CS) Versus The State of M.P. ("ow C-6.) (Cr'imina! Appea! under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.) 58; Ho'T'ble.AAf-.T.P. Shanna.J. Prese-nt:- Mr'.Suni! Otwani, c<unseJ fo!* the appeifent. Mr.faAesh Kufflnr- Jha. Dy.6ovt..4dvocate for tiie State. JU&6MENT (Passed w 8th July. 1. Chailenge in this oppeal is to the Judgntent of convetion & order of sentehce dated 12.4.1991 pcssed by the Specml Jude, ftaigarh, in ^ecial Ccse No.l3./90,.whereby & whereunder' lewned Special Judge aftsr holdins the oppeliant guil'ty for- the offence. punlshabfe under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the. -Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Preyention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') sentenced him to iinder-go rigQrous imprisonment for six mon1+'s. 2. Conviction is chaltenged cn the g?'oynd •ftat without any i&ta of evidence to prove. ihst offgnce has besn cemmitted against the comphincnt on ths / gr-nund of her" .caste, the trin! Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned cnd •there'by Go'*pmitt'e,d iilegttlity. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is 1+iat Ku. Kaiara K-ujur (PW-1), membe-r of.ScheAtJed Tribe wos t"ork'"g cs nufse in-the fiovemment Hospitat, ^ , Chhnland -rt»eeypeiifflit was also workmq ns Technicion in the said hospita!. .Oi¥ 2-0.11.90, ?"» tpmpfainant was present I" her quarter, -ri-ie appeliant ..^ ^5tE D'J! ^ came to her" quwter ond de.rotinded water-. The complamimt pi'ovided water to the sypeilont. After p.''ov'idin3 water the tippellant started teleyision of the compiainait, he caught hold the hands of •rt'e compia'ncnt md tried to took her i" room. Tne complai"a"t tried to rescue. &uring the course of scuffie, baigies of l+se comptainant were. broten, then she cried for help to .iwanidQS. The compkiinant has Jodged the repor-t on the second day yide Ex.P/1. B'-oken pieces of bangtes and b<mgles after removing froin the hnnds of the coff'-piainimt were selzee) vide Ex.P/2. The complair-tmt was sent for medtcat exam'nation but "o injury was found. Spot map was prepared v'de Ex.P/7. 4. Statements of the wi+nesse.s were recorded unde.r' Sectton 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short %e Code') md aflBr comptetion 6f investigation, charge sheet was fited before the Speciei Judge, Raigarh. 5- !n order to proye the guilt of ti-.e accused/oppelinnt, the prosecutio" has ew»<n6d as mony as 7 witnesses. The accused was extEmmed under Section 313 of l+^e Code where he denfed the cjrcumstances typearmg against him and cfaimed innocenc^ imd faise impiieatlon m the erime. in question. 6. After providing opportunjty of hearing to the parties, learned Speciai •Jutjge, Ratgarh convictsd & sentenc«dthe cppsifant as aforementloned. 7- I have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused the judgment impugned cnd record of the tria! Court. L Learned counsei for the appeliant vehemently orgued that m the present cese, primnrily.tfte accused wns charged for the offencs punishable under Sectio!? 354 of the Indiai Pena' Code ond 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, but while conyjctmg the c^pe!!ant under Section 3 (1) (xi) of fh®Act, the tr'cl Court hes hot conyiGted & sentenced l+'e oppellait unde?' Section 354 of the Inda" Penal Cods. The pro^cution hns "ot preferred <my appeal against such non-con"iction/acqu>ttal of the appeiiant under Sect'on 354 of the lRciian-Pe"al"Code., theF-efor-e. in the present case. eyen otherwise. »y. •'•." '**••> v\ if cony'ction & sentence of the qapeilant under Section 354 of the Indlon Penai Code would not be legatty possible. Learned counsel further' argued •t+'at if The evidence of -the complaincsnt PW-I) is cdmitted in gospel truth, then •"ference can be drawn that the appejtant has used criminal force with intent to outmge the modesty of a womnn not wtth intent to outmge the modesty' of a womwi who is a rneiTiber of Scheduied Tribs. Tn detai! evidence of the comolo.ineBit (PW-1). she has not stated onything to show that tha dppeliant hcs committed the aforesaid offence on the gr'ound 1+iat the compiain<mt is a member of Scheduled Trjbe. 9. On the o-rtier hond. learned State counset supporrad the judgment and ar'gued that evidence ndducad on behalf of the prose-eution is suff'cient for drowfng infer'ence that thet3ppeli(m+ has used crimma! force with intsnt to outrage the modes+y of a woman bslonging to Scheduled Tribe. 10. In order to (^preciate the ar'guTients advanced on behalf of the. parties, I have examined the eyide-nce availabSa.on record. 11. In the present oaae, evidenca of Kofara Kujuc (PW-1) is sufficient for drawing mfe.rerics that the present cippeiiant has used crimirw.1 force with intsnt tc- outrage the nifdesty of a woman, but she has not stated cmythirig in her- eyidence or- in F.I.ft. thct the oppeilcuit has co?r"r!tted 1+!e oforesaid offence o" -tt'e 'jr'ound that 1+>e compSamant is a member of Scheduied Tribe. 12-In •t+ie cbsenc< of such inqredient of the offBnce, conviction & sentence of thejappeiiemt under- Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act are not lega'ly sustamabte under the iaw- / 13. Cor'^equentfy, tiie appeal is allswed. Conviction s§isentence of ths iopsliant •» under 5®ct'on3 (1) (x') of the Act are t',e?®t'Yset ufiide. He be set at \ 'liberty at once. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge St/