e.^ ^y- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR 'CHHATTISGARH APPLICANTS -^) ^/..^/ ^ ..^1' .' "tf* ^/.fcl-^-"* -^' :\'t> ..••'^.••"' -0'' <°/'c< ^ \; NON-APPLICANT ISil Criminal Appeal Nd?^ (", /2002 1. Khagesh @ Khageshwar S/o. Laxmi Narayan Manikpuri Aged abt. 20 years R/o. Bavly Kuan, at Baikimthpur Rai^arh (C.G.) 2. SantoshYadav, S/o. Ramesh Kumar Yadav. , Aged abt. 24 years, at Baikunthpur, Rambhata, Raigarh(C.G.) 3. Avinash Sahu @ Jagdish, S/o. Deoram Sahu Aged abt. 25 years, R/o. Village Salhe, P/S. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) At present - Chhote Atermuda, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh through Scheduled Caste Welfare Thana Raigarh (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 f2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 ^, i^iii;) <«; »e HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr.ADpealNo 726/2002 Single Bench: Hon'bleShri Dilip Raosaheb beshmukh, J. Khagesh @ Kha9eshwarl&others Versus StSte of ChhattiS9arh Shri t?.R.Sharma, Senior Advocate.witK'Shri K.N.Nande, Aduocate & Shri B.&.Badgdyan, Advocate for the appellanta, Shri Ashish Shukia, jSovt. Advocate for the State ORAL JUG6MENT (&eiiveredon25th dfflyofApril20065 This cppedl is directed against the judgment dated 12-06-2002 delivered by Shri A.L. Nimonkar, Special Jud9e, Raigarh in Special Criminal Case No.35/2000 whereby the ogpellants were convicted urider Section 354 read with Section-34 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo additionat R.I. for Imonth. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 09-03-2000 the prosecutrix was returning home on her bicycle at about 5 P.M. Whenshe reached the bridge in between the Loing & Kotrdpali, the appellants abused her taking the nameof her caste and outpa9e<l her mqdesty by pressing her breasts. Upon receiving shouts of the prosecutrix, Avdtioot PW-7, Dhobaram PW-9, Indra tal PW-2, IshwtM- Pradhon PW-3 and Kripa Ram rushed to -rtie spot. Ori seeing the witnesses arrive, the appellants jpushed the prosecutrix under the cahal and ran awoy. Sdntosh Kumar <& Khagesh werel apprehended by the witnesses. A prompt F.I.R. was lodged on -'"'"^ ! " - : . ' : 4 ! • "• • : 09-03-2000 at 07,40 P.M.bytheprosecutrixa-t-PolkseStation-Chakradhar Nagdr situafed at'S;tCM. east frow ^he place of_pccurrence. On^^m^ e>an^ir»^n &r..t5,ICToppo:|PW-13didnot find ar^ exterrttL^ person but noticed that the prosecutrix complained of painon her back and also betow the right shoulder. After completion of investigation, The appellants were prosecuted under Section-3(l)(XI) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tt'ibes (Prevention of Atrocities Act., 1989) and under Section- 354 read with Section-34 of theIPC. ~ 3. The appellants abjured the guilt ond ledno evidence.The prosecution <j. examined as many as 13 witnesseSi"Relying upon the testimony of the prosecutt-ix whieh was dully corrobor'ated by witnesses Inder lal PW-2, Ishwar Pradhan PW-3, Avdhoot PW-7, Mahendra Singh PW-11 as also t)r. &.K. Toppo PW-13, the triat Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid inpara-1. (Supra). The appelloaits wer-e acquiftedof the charge under Sectiori- 3(1)(XI) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroeities'AGt., 1989). '\. .' '•. . 1 3. Shri D.R.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the dppellants argued that the prosecutrix has not specificatly mentioned in her- testimonyastowhich oftheqspellantshadpressed her breasts.So far as, the testimony of Inder lal PW-2, Ishwar Pradhan PW-3, Avdhoot PW-7 and Dhoba Ram PW-9 is concerned, it was argued that these witnesses did not see the occurrence and reached the spot subsequently. Referrin9 to the testimonyof Dr. D.K.ToppoPW-13, it wascontended thot no extemal injury was found on the prosecutrix. On-the above premises,it was argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not worth placing credence and the appellants are entitled to be acqyitt'ed. On tlae other hand, Shpi Ashish Shukla, leamad ©ovt.Advocate argued in supportof the impugned judgment. 4. | Having considered the rival submissions,I haveperused the record of |Specidl Criminal Case No.35/2QOO. The testimony of the prosecutrix ^teaMy.-shows'that while she was reTurning home on her biisycle on ^uai.uas &L|4. sx^ •ncy. og •+qnop AUB j.6 wtpplic^^ 31)4. puo^q s^.ioj^dfin aij4. j,sUro6o siuo^ 4-46"<U<| usaq soij ;3cjl J.Q ^g^ -uoi+a^ Japuri ^u^o ai^ ^tj^uoiuido pajspisuo:;* 31)4. J.O^IUD ^&i^.jj.i.tO S4-! ui Uoi+rossOtid 3141. Aq p3| aouapTAa si|4. psjspjsuo? sniji. SUJADI.-) "5 •soysj^plu! s.|,uD|]8ddo 3l|+ Aq p3| SDIW 33U3pjA3 0(^ •JSp|hO^S 4.1)6|J 31)4. (Vt0]3q pUD >|M>q 31^4. MlUJBd/6U(UjB|dlU03 SDM Xj^.nSSSOUtl 31)4. +]OL|4. p331+OU 31) 33UIE X1^4.n33SO^d si|+ ^.o XuoiMj+saj. 3i|4.,g34.iuoqoj4o3os|ogi-/^(joddoj^^(]j.o Auouij4.s3+ sijj. "s+sos^q ^34 passsjd puo ^34 pssnc|tS:"poLj s^oq xnoj. 's6puq puD? 31)4. ^D3U4.Dt|+iU!i|p|04. 3Uiot| Suiu^n.i.aJ uo pDt| xu^nssso^d 344. 0002-SO-60 uo +DL|+ Buisodsp Aq xij+ro^ojd 31)4. j.o UOISJSA 3141; p34x>joqojj05 A||nj. OS|D xu+nssso^d 31)4. j.o .ist|4.ojq 'i'[-^j L|6uis luipus^oyy j.o ^uouii.i.sa^ 344- 'SAoqi> 3li+ ssppag •s+SDs^q jsi| pssssjd pDi| s+uo||sddD 31)4. 4.044. Sui+c+s Aq xij+nsssojd 3L|4. ^o AuoiU!+sa+ ai|4. pa+Djoqou^oo OS|D 504 g-Md |B| JSpUJ •J3L) pSgnqO p0l| S4.UR||SCldo Sl.)4. 4.BIJ4. Ullt) p|6+ xi>i4.n33sojd 344. 4.Dt|+ pa+o+s ^3t|+jnj. spt| a^.) 'a^aip. Suipuo+s S4.up||adcb 344. NSOS 3t| 4.pt(4. ps+oj.s osp SDt) (S-/^d tuog DC|Ot)<] •s6pijq 31)4. jspun U3|pj. pDi| xu+nsssojd 31)4. 4.01(4. MBSpUO +ods 31J4. p3t|303J As44. '.xjjj.no^ojd s4). j.o s+noij? 34). BUUDSLJ uo 4.0t)+ 6ui+otS Aq Auouii+sa+^stj pa+pjoqo^joo os|B5-^(juioy DqoL|g '/-/^cj 4.ooi|pAv 'g-/^(j uD4pBJ(j jDmL|S]; '2-/^(j ID1 •<SPUIS!1+!- ^luo 4-°N 'paunqa^un S! s+SDa4q .131) Suissajd Aq ^sspoui.oL) pslSiu+no pins ja4 ps+daS.oi.ui A|4.uioF pDi) s+UD||addD 3141. +oL|4. Auouii+sai. js[-| -uoi^. s+wiidiui A|^|iy.So^ aAi+oui ^4D pG^ •10 S4.UD||3ddD 3t|4; tSUIDElO 36pl]-l6 AUB S-<D3q Xlil4.rK>^Ojdf8t|4. 4Bt|4- MOI.IS o+ ps4.!3!|3 uaaq soij SUILI+OUUOI+OUIUIDXS-SSOJO ui 4.oi|4.:3J3t| aj.ou 04. 4.usuj4.J3d si +1 'ssjjnfui auios psuia|sns PUD aCpjuq at)4. uoau S4.UDi|3cfd6"st)4. /^q pai.lsndsDMsys •paAyjOui'Dyaodu)) puo g-y^d uioyoqoi|g'^-/^.i;o$i,jpAy 'E-My trotlPlud •IOMIISI '2-/V^d |P| •<apui sasssai.iwi st|+ ||t> 'xid+rossoud 31)4. j.o ;S4.no4S 31)4- Gui^osq uodn •s+SDS.ig ^34 Suissa^d Aq^ /4.sapotu jai) pa6pJ4-np puo pasnqo puo Jipdiw+o^j-Suio-i :aji)( uasm+sq -ui s6puq 31)4. Jpsu ^st) p34.cta3ja4.ui pBt) S4.uo|]addD auft. 'SutuSAa ai.)^ ur OOQZ £060 4 awar-ded by the learned trial Judge is concemed, considering the nature of \ .'. .' . . • ' . •" offence, no interference is called for. 7. In the result, the appedl being devoid of merit is dismissed. Perpetual warrgnt of arrest be issued against the appellont Avinash Sahu © Jagdish and sent to Chief Judjcial Magistrate, Raigarh along with o copy of this judgment with a direction to seyd the appellant Avinash Sahu @ \}o}JL . ? ,'.'i. Jagdish after arrest to undergo senterice as ordered by this Court. Appellcmts Khagesh and Santosh Yadgv who are in jail, shall undergo the sentence. • I ^- „ . , i . •', Sd-/ Judge uffl'iie.