CF0000060791 B.EEQaH_,TB5JHiai_£CXBT_^_@DICATURE ; M.P^. AX JAQALPCTi Cri. Appeal No-xlyo /96 APFELLANT'; V/s RESPON'OENTs- Siakbdev Ql?i, S/o Hahipai Giri Qosai, gged 18 yrs,., R/o Ramnagar Jada Tala, P.S .Kusmi, Tab. Kusmi, Mstt.Sarayiaf pae Stat^ of M.P*, ihrotigb ^-h° E.S+LuBcira, Qis-t;t. Sargula. APPEAL.aNDER SECTION .374 Cr.P.C. -(*.*? -e^-. <• / :2i!B(> i3ii"Nfrltt< . Juusti'ce Pritinker DiwQki Sukhdev Giri son of Mahipal Giri G'osa'i Shri Vivek Shrivastava/counsei for the Shri Vivek Sharma. PL for the State. iiant. CRI, R SECTIOI np T ^Bl-t ,f-K .02.2011 ihis appeal is directed against the i.mpugned |udgment and order' dated 28,10^1996 passed by Speeiai Judge, Sarguja, .Ambikapur in Spedal Crimina! Case No. 170/1995 convictinc the accused/appellant under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduied. Caste d Scheduied Tribe (Prevention of Atrocitles) Act (for short "the Act") and Section 506 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.500/-, in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/S 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, rigorous imprisonment of one year u/S 506 (B) IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. •• / 2. Case of t'he prosecutioft. in brief, is that on the basis of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) dated 14.11.1995, F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) was reoiste'red on 15.11.1995 under Section 354 d 506-B of the Indi-ar!. Penal .Code and 3 {l)(xi) of the .Act agoinst the accused/appellant. It is aileged th.at on 14.11.1995 in between 9 to 10.a.m'..when -rhs prosecutrix (PVV-1), aged about 19 years, iliUi was workinq in her fieid, accused/aooellant reached there and caught hold of her with !ii intention. After investiqation chalianwas filed on 21.11.1995 under Section 506 (0.) TD./' (U) ir'i- an> i"d 3(1) (xi) of the Act. 3. So as to hold the accused/appeiiant auilty, prosecution has examined 02 witnes-ses in support of its case. Stotement of *he accused/appellant wos also recorded under Section 31: of the Code of Criminaj Proeedure in which he denied the charges !eve!!ed against him and pleaded his innocence and faise implication in the case. This apart', one witness nameiy ¥.!<• Kindo (DVV-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. Counse! for t'h.e appellant subrriits that there is ns evidence on record to show that the oileged act was done by the accused/appeilant with intent to dlshonour or outrage the r modesty" of the prosecutrix becauss she belonged to Scheduled Csste eategory'. He submits thc^ no documentary evidence whatsoever has been produced by the prosecution in resDeCt of the caste of the Drosecutrix. On the other hand, supporting the impuaned judgment it has been araued by th-e State counse! that the impugned judgment is strictlyin Qccordance. with iaw and there is no infirmily inT'he some. - /' h'^t/?riH FTsi ^n^p'l 'T^i^p ^"hp. ^n^'T'if.^ ^y^f^ np.ri i^^fl Ah '^ ^u-UUI l^tSf 1 ; *u?! ! i iSi tJUl 1 i'S'iS «/liI'ui US«fi UOCrU i l S'u' materid Qvo.ilab'ieon record including judgment impugned, 7. Prgsecutrix (PW-1) 'no.a s+ated in her evidence that she belonas to Vraon caste and she does not know the accused/appeJlaiT1' present in the court. She has stated that on 1 c^ ^" hoid of the date of incident the accused/appellant Sukhdeo who had come in the house of one Chandrika Giri of her villaqe, had come to her when she was harvesting the paddy in her fie!d, v«'ith an intention to outraqe her modestv. She had asked him not to do the said act otherwise she wil! scream. She has stated that accused/appeliant threatened her and upon hearing her scream. one Prabhu and Kalara who were working in the 'neorbv fieid came there and thereafter, the accused/appellant rcn awoy from the spot. Sh.e has further stoted that she went to her house weeping an> narrated the entire incident to her mother cnd then the F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) was lodged. In cross-examination, she has admitted the fact that prior to the date of incident, she had never met the accused/appelianf; A.S.I. A.R. Ra-i-hia (PW-2) is the Investigating Officer who has supported the case of the prosecution. Except these two ,,witnesses no other witnesses h.ave been examined by the prosecution. Named F.I.R. has bee" iodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) whereas accordinq to her-'court statement itse!f, she does not know the accused/appeilant and there is no evidence on record to show as to how the nsmed F.1.R. has been lodged by the Drosecutrix. Further the Dresecutrix has not stoted that she belonas to Scheduled cas'te or Scheduied Tribe and thei*e is no -documentot'y evidence to thls effect..Accused/aopeiiant has -^/' ' also not' admitted 'the caste of'''the prosecutrix. Thus on the '**fr. basis: of evidence adduced by the proseci accused/appetiant cannot be convicted under the provisions of special Act. FurtKermore, prosecutrix has not stated that the a!!eged act was done by the accused/appeljant with intent to .dishonour or.outrage her modesty because she belonged to ;)/.- Scheduled Caste co+egory. Even ths evidence in respect of threateninq is aiso not reiiabje. Considering the overaii aspects of the case in pari'ieuiar the weak type of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it will not be safe for this Court to uphold the conviction of the accused/Gppellant under Sections under Section 506 (B) IPC fyi'S nf +hp 4/~- lui^J.^ \^^^ ^ ^/ i t i t<"1 / ^'- In conclusion, the appeal is aiiowed. Impugned judgment dated 28.10.1996 is hereby set aside. Appeliant is acquitted of the charqe ieveiled aqainst him. Since aj: bai!, his bai! bonds staid discharged. iianT is alread'y Sri/- Pritinker Diwafeer Judge :Bl.i»;IW8i -. / .f-