¥ ‘ W wk ragga: gaumhmy IN THEHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ’JABALPUR (i Vi’iii 2 cFooooom 232 of 1996‘ .a ’ ; n g Crimihal Appeal No. A g BABU LALhgs’6g of Bhuryu‘Dewa‘ngan‘fp/ 'aged about’25\years, resident of village Kara i , police statiqn Kasdol, District RAIPUR M.P/. \ i APPELLANT i l 1’ VERSUVS i RES‘poNDENT u The State of Madhya 'Pradesh. M ' APPEAL UNDER SECTxoN 374(2) 6F THE cam: OF CRIMINAL yR‘CCEbURE. ‘ ’ " n § @ ’ Clam“). 481 1996 ' Babal kESPONDENT t h ' Stac of Madhya Prades g u Si M.D.Dhot¢, counsel far the appena. Shr Nseraj ehta, P.L. for the State. a APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37412] OF THE ¢ODE OF CRIMINKL PROCEDURE w“ JUDGMENT (04.07301 1) e present appea ases out of the dgment & order dated _ 1 1 5 passed the Spel Judge, Raur Spel Cas N I 2003 convg the accused/appellant for the (merme pushle under Secon 3(1)(x) of the SC[SI‘ (Pmvenn of tmces) ct short ‘the Act’) and senteng m to unergo rigorous nponment for six onts. mh 2. Case of the prosecun bf that 6n a ritn j report S s have been lodg uhra ( husban ‘ Mohanma .W.) leg that two éays before theret on 16.5.93 accuseappellant Ba'buml came to is house and stmgtcd -'- sayi to his wife (Mohanmati) as to “Chmn'n what vgetablouw had cooked and some altercation took place between he. On he bs1 hts ntn pt x P gxsd 8 5 9 r St1o f S’I (ntto m f nmar r u 1 r . t n tio txo m rie 1s 18 593 wte 1 ald to ed by Bdm P W 1) & of ’ n (P—3 algm o Le d/ h ng n eey tm t as of t wte reor FIR (E / 4} was retere on 1 3 unde ecn 3(1)(x) o the $C/‘ Preven of Atroces) Act Statement o K (P.W.-4) was moorded unde gecon 6 1 C P on 21.10.93 and ultimaely chana was med on 29.10.93 under Secn 3 (1)(x) of the Act. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKFR DIWAKER AppELLANr ul V€rsus hr nt i M § Th l n Ju 8 2 9 bv cia m an cm e o 19 zcnn mab u tto Am A (1n cm m d uns @ 3. L So as to bald the accused/appeliant guilty the prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses. Stamment Eof - the v‘ accused/appellant was also mcorded under Section 313 of the ‘ Cr.P.C. in which he dsnied .the charges alleged against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This ayart one defence witness has also been examined. 4. After hearing counsel for 'the patties the trial Court has conwcted the accused] appellant of the charge under Secmon 3(1)(x) of the SCls’P (Preventlon of Atrocmes) Act and sentenced mm as _ mentoned above. Hence tms appeal. § a -2‘ Contention of Shd Dhote, counsel for the appellant is that there is no date in the written repoxt lodged by Budhram, 161 Cr.P.C. 5. statement of only one witness namely Kumar (PAM-4) was recorded . and that too, on 21.10.93 and as the incident had taken place inside the piemises and therefore the provisions of Section 3 (l)(x) of the Act would not be attracted. He further submits that there is m documentaxy evidence to show the caste of the complainant. 6. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Shri Mehta that though there is no documentary evidence on record in respect of the caste of the complainant but once the accused/applicant has admitted the caste of the complainant the prosecution is not required to prove anything further. w 7. Bndhxam (P.W.—1) in his court statement has stated that Mohanmati (P W -3) is his wife and on the date of incident at about 4 00 p m when she was all alone m the house, accused/appellmit came there and started saying ‘Chamnn what vegetable you had ,wcooked’ and when she objected to this he threatened her by saying that he would rape her. He “has further stated that the accused] appellant had also abused his daughter-Anita (P.W.-2) and had given her Rs. 10. Anita (P.W.-2) daughter of the complainant, in her court statement has stated that when the accused/ appellant uttered some wonis to her mother she was standmg near the well wh1ch ls adjacent to the house and then he asked her to glve water and also alled her ‘Chamnn. She has statcd that thereafter accusedlappellant washed his hands and legs, enquited the whereabouts of his father and gave Rs. 10 to give it to her mother and left the place saying that he will come in the night. Mohanmah (P W ~3) m bar court statement has stated that on the date of meldent when her husband has gone to the market she wee alone 1n her house, accused/appellant came there and started g saving ‘Chamn’n what—vegetable you had cooked’ She has stated that thereafter some altematlon took place and the accused/appellant a threatened and msulted her She has mrther stated that after somehme her daughter also Informed her that when she was standing near the well accused/appellant called her ‘chamrin’ and gave her ten rupees She has adrmtted the fact that she has also abused the accused] appellant as she too was abused by htm usmg rhlthy language. Knmar (P W -4) the only independent witness has not supported the prosecunon case and has been declared hoshle SuraJbhan Smgh Rana (PW-5) 1s the Inveshganng 0&oer has admltted the fact that the case dJaxy statement of the witness was mended on 21. 10.93 i.e. atter about 5 months of the incident. d 8. Minute examination of the evidence makesiit clear that there is no conclusive or reliable evidence on record to show that the incident had taken place within the public View. The Witnesses have categorically deposed that the accused/appellant had entered the house of the complainant Budhram and enquired horn his wife as t what vegetable she had cooked and then after abusing her and her ; daughter he left the place There ls no ev1dence on record that the \ complamant or h1s daughter was abused w1th1n the pubhc wew or \\ the meldent had taken place m pubhc v1ew. Furthermore, there 1s no other evidence on record to show! that anyone else has heard the abusive language used by the accused] appellant. Moreover, the witnesses have also admitted the fact that there was some altercation o \ @ bétween the accused] appellant and Mohanmati (P.W.-3) and both of them have uttemd abusive language to each other. Considering this particmar aspect of the case, it is diflicult to uphold the (gonviction of the accused/ appenant under sectuon 3(1)(x) of the SC[S’1‘ (Pmvcntlon of Atmcmes) Act. Fuxthcr Netxam (D W 1) the defence w1tness has stated that Budhmm had taken Rs 300 mm the accused/appellant ' and on the date of moldent the accused/appsllant had gone to Ins house for demandmg money and m stead of gwmg money Mohanman and Amta have abused thc accusedfappellant. u‘ k 10. From the evidence of this Witness it appears that them was some gnonetaxy‘ transaction between the accused/appellant and Budhram and therefom possibility of happening of any incident or the possibility of exaggeration in version also cannot be ruled out. Thus, on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution it will not be safe for this Court to uphold the convbtion of the accused/appellant under Section 3 (1)(x) of the said Aet and that being so, benent of doubt is to be extended to the accused/appellant. \J 11. In the tesult, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Court belmv convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant under Section 3 (1)(x) of the said Act is set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. As the accused/appellant isVrepoxted to be in Jail and themfoxe . he be set hee immediately if not required inW/ Sdl- ,1/4 D wake 1m ' tinker J“ O.