HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR Cr. App.No. 1431/1996 SB: Hoa^ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhaawar Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT State of Madliya Pradesh (Now C.G.) Versus Paachram s/o Bharat Sataami JUDGMENT Post for judgment on 12-03.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge l<r-~ HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTI8GAKH AT BILA8PUR Cr. App. No.1431/1996 SB: Hoa^ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhaawar APPBLLANT .. RESPQNDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattiisgarh). Versus Panchram s/o Bharat Sataami, aged 22 years, R/o Kurdh, Distorict Raipur. APPLICATION U/S 378 (iiilFOR LBAVE TO APPBAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL AND AL80 AN APPEAL U/S 378 11} OF CR.P.C. AGAINST ACQUITTAL Appearaace: Shri S.R.J.Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer for fhe appellaat/State. Shri Sarataraj Khan, counsel for the respondent. JUDGMENT (Delivered on)^03.2010) 1. The appellaat/State has preferred this appeal agaiast fhe judginent aad fiiidiag of the Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Dhamtari, passed ia Crimmal Case No.786/1987, whereby, fhe leamed Judicial Magistrate Second Class has acquitted the respondent ofthe charge under Sections 354 aad 323 offhe IPC. 2. The learaed lower Court has acquitted fhe respoudent due to lack of evidence, It has disbeUeved the prosecution witaesses aad also acquitted fhe respondent on fhe ground fhat the prosecution has not proved its case beyoud reasonable doiibt. 3. Brief case of tlie prosecution is fhat on fhe date of iiicident, coraplaiiiasit -Shaatibai had gone for nature's call aad was returamg, at fhat thne, respondent/accused caught hold of her haiid near Dhobni Talab aad while fhe complaiaaat tried to get frce herself, she received abrasion on her foretlager. The iacidentwas witaessed by the potters, who wcre working at some distaace, Report of flie incideut was lodged m PoUce Station vide Ex. P/ 1. The coniplainaut was inedically exainuied. The report is Ex, P/2. Thereafter, Police started mvestigation. Statemeiits of the witaesses were recorded under Section 161 offhe Cr.P,C. 4. After completion of mvestigation, charge sheet was filed before fhe Court of Jzidicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, who transferred fh.e case to fhe Court of Judicial Magistrate Second Class, DhaiEitad. The Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Dhamtan frained charges under Sections 354 and 323 ofthe IPC against fhe respondent/accused and read over to liiai, who abjured the guilt aad pleaded ianocence, 5. After affordtag opportunity of hearing to the parties, tbe leanied Judicial Magistrate Second Class acquitted the respondent/ accused of fhe charge under Sections 354 aiid 323 of fhe IPC frained agaiast hiin. 6. I have heard learned counsel for fhe pardes at length and have perused ttie record of the lower court. 7, Shaati Bai (PW-1) has deposed that she was goiag to nature's caU. The acczised/respondeut tried to niolest her aad caught hold ofher haiid. She tried to free her hand, but she could not succeed. Then she started shoutmg and pushed fhe accused/respondent aad ran towards tfae Talab, She narrated fhe iacident to one Saajay aad told him to go her house aad iaform her husband. The boy went to her house and narrated fhe (^ uicident to her husbaad. Her husband caine fhere aad tiiey went to the house offhe accused/respondent The accused/respondent tded to beat her husband aad therealler, report was lodged to the PoUce Station vide Ex. P/ 1. 8. In cross examination she has stated tliat before fhe iacident, she did not know fhe accused/rcspondent Her husbaad also did not know tiie accused/respondent For fh.e first tune, fhey niet fbie accused/respondent They also did not know fhe particulars offhe accused/respondent. She has stated fh.at she had beaten the accused/respondent for 10 times wifh fhe loia. There were iajuries on tiie head of the accused/respondent Thercafter, she weut to the Talab, bafhed fhere, aad retumed to her house. She has stated fhat before lodgiiig tlie FJ.R. she did not kaow fhe name of the accused/respondent. 9. Considerhig fhe above fact, her statenient becom.es doubtful that how she had given fhe name of fhe accused/respondent as Pao.chramL ia the F.I.R. 10. Shivnarayan (PW-2), husband of the prosecutrix has stated fhat one boy caiae to catl hiai; he does not know fhe naine of the boy. He went to fhe Talab aad enquired froni his wife. She told fhat one boy caught hold of her ann aad she has beaten him wifh the lota for 2-3 tiiaes. He has also stated fhat raofher of fhe accused/respondent was coniiag witih. a lathi to beat fhe ghost, as fhe accused/respondent had told her xnofher fhat somie ghost had beaten hroi wifh stone. When tiiey went to titie house of fhe accused/respondent, he was lyiag ia his house. He did not corae out Then he aayhow dragged fhe accused/respondent froin his house and asked his wiie wheth.er he was fhe person fhen his wife affirmed. He has stated in his cross examiaation fhat fhey went to the PoUce Station aad lodged the report, at fhat tim.e, fhey were unaware offhe naoie oftiie accused/respondent 11. Statenient of Shivnarayaa (PW-2) is not corroborated by fhe stateraent of Shaati Bai (PW- 1) on fhe point of beating by the ghost It is clear froiu fhe stateraent fhat at fhe tmie oflodging the report, bofh were unaware offhe name offhe accused/respondent. Then how fhe name of fhe accused/respondent was Bientioned ia tlie FJ.R. This becomes doubtihiL 12, Geetabai (PW-3) has stated that the complaiaant Shaati Bai did not told her fh.at the accused/respondent tried to niolest her. 13. Viaod Kuraar Pandey (PW-5) Assistaat Surgeon has stated fhat one iajuiy of siaiple nature was found on fhe forefiager of the coBiplaiaant. 14, Thus, it is clear fronx fhe stateraent of th.e aforesaid witnesses tiiat fhe coraplauiaat did not teU Geeta Bai ariythiag about inolesting by the accused, who is aa iadependent witaess. It ineaas Geeta Bai (PW-3) has not supported titie case of prosecution. She has not even been declared hostile. 15, Shaati Bai (PW-1) and Shivnarayan (PW-2) were not kaowiag fhe naisie of fhe accused/respondent at the tmie of fhe incident, Then how tiiey have written fhe name offhe accused/respondent as Paachram ia fhe FJ.R. aad for this, fliey have uot ofiered any explanation. Under such circiimstaaces, case of fhe prosecution becoines doubtEul fhat the accused/respondent was fhie person who tded to niolest fhe coiaplaiaaiit. ^•"^ / 1 16. So far as the iajury sustaiaed by fhe complamaat is concemed, she has stated that when she was escaping after pushiag the accused/respondent, she got iajury, but her husband has not stated ao.ytiinig about the uijuiy. Dr, Vinod Kumar Paiidey (PW-5) has stated fhat fhe injury could be sustaiaed by her own also, Therefore, it is not clear fhat who toried to molest the comiplamaat. Ifit was fhe accused/respondent fhen how fhey did not kaow fhe naoie ofthe acciised. Even Geeta Bai (PW-3) who is aD. iadependent wito.ess has not supported fb.e case of prosecution. Therefore, af'ter appreciating fhe evidence, ttie leanied Judicial Magistorate Second Class acquitted tbLC respondent/accused under Sections 354 and 323 offhe IPC giviag benefit ofdoubt 17. In aii appeal again.st acquittal tf two views on fhe prosecution evidence are possible aad fhe trial Court has taken one view favourable to fhe accused person, fhen it wUl not be penaissible for fhe appeUate Court to reverse fhe findiag of acquittal by takiag fhe ofher possible view on fhe prosecution evidence. 18. For fhe foregoiag reasons, I do not find any such iofirmity or iUegality ia fhe unpugned judginent of acqiiittal, which inay warraiit iaterference ia fhis appeal again.st acquittal. 19. The appeal filed by the appellaiit/State against fhe acquittal of respondent/accused, fherefore, is Uable to be disiaissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge