@HW COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Amal No. 519 of 2002 Appellant Rahish Quareshi aged about 25 years, S/o. Rauf Quareshi, Caste Muslim, R/o. Mudhapar Baipass Road, Korba City, Kotwali,<‘Korba (CG). Versus The State of Chhattisgarh. Respondent: (C(‘iminal appeal U/s 374 (2) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure 1973) SB: Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, J. ,4" Present: i Mr. S.V. Purohit, counsel for the appellant. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Panel Lawyer forthe State. a ORALJUDGMENT (Delivered on this 26th day of November, 2009) . The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-2-2002 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Criminal Case No. 112/2001, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/—, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.l. for one month. 2. The prosecution case as set out in the First information Report (FIR) is that on 26-2-2001 complainant namely Shivratri Bai (PW/1) was sitting in front of her house. At that time, the accused/appellant came there and pressed her foot ‘with bad intention. When she protested, the accused/appellantstarted abusing and told her that he would rape her. He also pressed her neck and tried to throw “Sigdi” on her from where piece of fire (Angar) fell on the body of the complainant as a result of which she sustained injuries. Thereafter, on the same day i.e., on 26-2- .\ pi 2001 at 9.45 p.m. the complainant lodged the FIR (EXP/1) in Police Station, Korba, where the offence was registered against the appellant. and the matter was investigated. .‘After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the competent court who inrturn, committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Iearned Sessions Court framed the charges under Sections 354, 294, 506(B) & 324 of the IPC read with Section 3 (i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of AtrOCIties) Act, 1989- against the appellant The appellant abJured the gurlt Thereafter the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr P C in which he denied the Circumstances appearing against him i s and pleaded innocence and false implication. , After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on evaluation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted above. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is perverse and. contrary to law. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence witnesses. There is no eye.- witness to the incident and nobody has supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that neither “Sigari” nor burnt clothes were seized from the complainant by the prosecution. PW/2 and PW/3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant herself had stated that she had not given any statement to the Police. After commission of crime, the appellant was in jail for six days, however, the trial Court imposed fine of Rs.500/- and benefit of Probation of Offenders w Act has not been given to him to which he is entitled. Learned counsel lastly submits that considering the entire facts, the judgment of the trial Court be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charge. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State in support of the impugned judgment of the Sessions Court submits that the accused/appeilant was rightly convicted under Section 323 of the IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the trial Court and also the impugned judgment. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge against the appellant, examined seven witnesses. 8. PW/1 Shivratri Bai the complainant stated in her deposition that she identified the accused present before the Court She has stated that on the date of inCIdent at about 6 30 p m when she was Sitting in front of he? house, the accused/appellant came there and pressed her foot. When she asked him as to why he was pressing her foot, the £ accused/appellant told the complainant to shut up otherwise he would rape her. During the incident, the accused abused her, pressed her neck and pushed her on fire as a result of which her saree was burnt and she sustained injuries on back, chest, waist and neck. She further stated that she lodged the report in Police Station vide Ex.P/1 - 9. PW/5 H. Peters, Inspector, Kotwali, Raigarh, corroborating the statement of the complainant Shivratri Bai deposed that the complainant Shivratri Bai lodged report in Police Station on 26-2—2001 vide Ex. P/1. He also stated that he sent the complainant for medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Korba vide Ex.P/4—A, where Doctor A.R. Porte ~ (PW/4) examined her and found the following injuries on her body and gave his report vide Ex.P/4. (i) There was tenderness and swelling on both sides of crichoid process on neck with. redness. (ii) There was tenderness on back of chest with swelling. (iii)Burnt wound of size 6cm x 2 cm transverse on back of lumber with bruishness. . (iv)Burnt wound of size 4 cm x 3 cm left side lumber region with blister. Injury No.(i) & (ii) were caused by harg and blunt object and’ injury No. (iii) & (iv) were caused by heated object. Injuries are simple in nature. 10. Although complainant Shivratri Bai has stated in para 10 of her cross examination that after lodging the report, Police had not taken her statement and not enquired anything from her, but she stated in her ex’amination-in-chief in para 5 that the Police had taken her statement. The statements made in examination-in-chief and in cross examination, are contradictory but Shivratri Bai —'the complainant has fully supported her fl‘R (Ex.P/1) given to the Police which was proved by PW/5 H. Peters. Thus,—on evaluation of her deposition,and considering the testimopies of PVY/5 H. Peters, Inspector, Kotwali, Raigarh and PW/4 Doctor A.R. Porte, the duly corroborated version of prosecution inspires confidence. Thus, it is evident that the defence was unable to elicit any substantial contradictions, omissions or improvement by which her . testimony can be held to be unreliable or untrustworthy. 11. Taking into consideration over all evidence available on record, i am of the considered opinion that the judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or irregularity warranting interference in appeal. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed .12. Sdl- Enchandrakar "" and is accordinglydismissed. 7X .:_ Judge Raju