i SSm m^ .^^- ~'M \"v IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR •O'ly^.;-. ,'i'i^ •By"<-<i Crimlnal Appeal No. \&"2-\ 795 ^^ <( APPELLANT R^a Prasad, 1 "" CFOOOQ06b554 S/o Uslirain Verma, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Bhoyana, P*S< ARjunl, Dlstrlct Ralpur...- •\/T3RSUS !l ^?0(,? RI;,SPONDENT S^ate of Madhya Pradesh through S o O. Arjunl, Dlstrlct; Ralpur ^t^.LS^' " ^P&^..:UN^^^-SEC^_37^^ '^^r^^l^ ^ ^. ^ Cf) COURT OF AT (Hon, Mr, Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Crimina! Appeai No. 1021 of 1996 VERSUS Ram Prasad State of Madhva Pradesh Shri Suni! Sahu, counse! for the appellant. Smt. Srnita Ghal, PL for the State. Prosecutrix ls also present In the Court and she is iderEtifIed by Shri Jaideep and Shri M. R, Sahu, Advocates. OF 3_y...O_.©_N_E_N.T (/J..03.2011) The present appeaS arises out of; the judgment and. order dated 12.06.1996 passed by Special Judge, Raipur In Speciai Case No. 143 of 1996 convictjng the accused/appeliant under Sectlon 3 (1) (xl) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (Prevention of Atrocjties) Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprjsonment for one year and pay.flne of Rs. 500, • sn default of -payment of fine to further undergo slmple imprisonment for slx mont'ns. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.1994, FIR Ex.P-1 was iodged by the Drosecutrix (PW-l), a married 'lady aged about 25 years ajseging in it that'on 18.04.1.994 at about 6 p.m. she had gone to" th'e clinic of the accused/appeSlant to take medldne for her husband who was suffering from fever. it Is alieged that when she was sitting on a bench.kept sn the ciinic, the appellant caught ho!d of her arm and pressed her breast and thlnklng fchat the appeilant mlght do some bad work wlth her, she came back to her house with her chlldr, She has ajiesed that on 2B;4:l994 -2-- when her husband asked her to go to the appeISant for making payment of his fee, she refused the same by narrating the inddent dated 18.04,1994, Thereafter a vjijage'meetjng was called on'20.04.94 and then the report was lodged. After completlon qf Investigatjon, the chailan was flled on 06.06.1994 for the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Schedujed Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrodties) Act (for short 'the Act')and jn ajternative under SectSon 354 of IPC was regsstered agalnst the accused/appeSlant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guiity, prosecutlon has examined 04 wltnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under sectlon 313 of the Code of Cnminal Procedure in which he denled the charges levelled agatnst him and pSeaded his innocence and false impilcation In the case, Apart from this.. two wltnesses nameiy Nakul (D'W-1) and • Prabhuram Verma (DW-2) have •also been examlned by the defence sn support of its case. 4. Aft.er heanng the partles the trial Court has convicted a.nd sentenced the accused/appeJSant for the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventlon or Atrocities) Act. 5. Contentlon of Shri Sahu, learned counsei for the appeliant is that present is a case of faise jmpljcation because the prosecutrix and her husband were not interested to pay the fee of the a.ppeisant who had treated her husband. He submits that even otherwise looking to the material contradictions and omissions in the ^statement of the prosecutnx,, the appeliant cannot be convicted. It has .also been argued that there is an inordjnate de!ay of three days in iodging the FIR whlch has not been properly explained by the ^ f & "%. i -^' .:^; ^ i ^ ^ \i.y!:y -3- prosecution. He further argued that even if the entire case is taken as it is the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act is not made out agajnst the appeSiant because there is no evldence on record to show that the appejlant caught hold the prosecutrix just because she beiongs to Scheduled Tribe communlty and at best offence under Section 354 of JPC would be made out against the appelfant and in relatlon to the said offence the appeiiant and the prosecutrix have compromised the matter out side the Court and two appjjcatjons i.e. I.A. No.Ol under Section 320 (2) and I.A. No.02 under Section 320 (5) of CrlmjnaS Procedure Code to this efFect have been filed duly supported by the affidavlt of the prosecutrix. 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by Smt. Ghai, learned State counsei that the cause of delay In iodging the FIR has been properly explained by the prosecutrix saymg that as she was feeljng ashamed, she dld not snform her husband about the incldent on the same day. She has further argued that when on 20.04.1994 her husband asked her to go to the appeilant and make the payment of his fee, she narrated the entire inddent to him and therefore the conviction of the appelSant is fully justlfied. 7. Heard counsel for the partles and perused the material avallable on record induding thejudgment impugned. 8. Prosecutrix (PW-1) in her court statement has stated that she is Gond, Scheduled Tribe by caste. On the date of inddent as her husband was sick and was not in a position to move,, she had gone to cail the appeilant who was a viilage doctor. She has stated that when she was sittlng on a bench kept in the dinic of the appellant, her breast was pressed by hlm. She has stated that after she returned from hls .^3?"^.. ^y"""'- '%. fi... . -..».. 1 .-11- cijnic, the appellant had come to her bouse and given jnjection to her husband, On the second day when her husband asked her to go to the appelSant and make the payment of hls fee^ she refused the same by sayjng as to sn what manner she was subjected by the appeliant. Thereafter the vjiiage meeting was cailed whsch was duily attended by her husband and the appeiiant and in the said meeting when the appeiiant refused for commjssion of any such act by him^ a declslon was taken to lodge a report and accordinajy FIR Ex.P-1 was iodged by her. m cross-examjnatjon the prosecutrix is very firm and has denied al! the suggestjons as given by the appellant. Ganesh Ram (PW-2) is a witness to the Panchayat whiie supporting the prosecution case has categoncally stated that a vjHage meet'ing was called in respect of the alSeged offence against the appeliant. Agnu Ram (PW-3), the husband of the prosecutnx whlle supportsng the prosecution case has stated that as he was suffering from high fever due to jnjury and was not in a position to go to the appellant for hss treatment.. asked his wife to go to the appeliant who was a vjjjage doctor. He has stated that after returnlng of his wife from the clinic, the appeilant had come to his house and given him imection. He has further stated that after 2-4 days when he asked her wlfe to go to the appellant for maki.ng payment of his fee^ she refused the same and then narrated the entire incident to him. This witness has also stated about the hoiding of Panchayat meetjng. In cross-examlnatlon he is very firm and has not deposed anything which may heip the appellant. The Investigatlng Officer (PW-4) has supported the prosecution case. 9. Minute examinatlon of the evidence reflects that on the date of incident when the prosecutnx had gone to the ciinlc of the appellant, taking advantage of her hejplessness condition, -£-- her breast was pressed by the appellant. The statement of the prosecutrix has been duljy supported'by her husband Agnu RaM (PW-3) and Ganesh Ram (PW-2). The evidence further reflects that the delay in lodging the report has been proper.ly explajned by the prosecutrix by saysng that'on the second day whe.n her husband asked her t.o go to the appelSant .for makjng payment of his fee., she narrated the entire jncide.nt to hjm. Thereafter the vjSlage meetlng called and then the report was lodged. So far as offence under Sectlon 3 (1) (xi) of' the Act is concerned,. there ls absolutely no evjdence on record to show that the alleged act was done by the accused/appel!ant .slmpty because the prosecutrix was Scheduled Tribe. ingredients of Sectlon 3 (1) (xl) of the Act are not clearly made out against the appellant and therefore it wili. not be safe for thls Court to convict him for the said offence. However, evjdence and other materia! makes out a case against the appejiant'under Section 354 of IPC and in reiation to this offence, the accused appe!lant and the prosecutrix have filed appilcations for compoundi.ng the offence, The prosecutrix and the appeiiant are also present in the Court and on belng asked the prosecutnx states that she has decided to compromise the matter of her own and she is no more interested for the prosecution of accused/appelJant, 10, AccordingSy the appljcatlons are aljowed, The effect of this compromise wou.id be the acquittai of the appellant of the offence punishabje under Section 354 of the Inclian Penai Code. Order accordlngjy. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge