.-,-93X!»^ ^S-^^'SS^^^ l^s^^^l^^ APPELLANT: (On Bai!) RESPONDENT: HIQH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.205 pt2S06 Sanat Kumar, S/o Shri Suk Lal. aaed about 27 ysars, Occupatiori Agricuiturist, R/'o ViEiage Siiii, P.S. Dhamdha, Disft. Durg (C.G.) Versus The State of Chhattisgarh {Criminai appeal under Section 374 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} f-'resent: Mr. N.S. Dhurandhar, counsel for the appeilant. Mr. Ravindra Agrawat, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondent. Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUD6MENT (21-10-2S08) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 6-3-2006 passed bv the Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Speciai Case No.98/2004 whereby iearned Speciai Judge after holding the appetiant guiity for commission of offence under Sections 354,323 of the i.P.C. & 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocjties) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), sentenced him to undergo R.l. for six months & pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of flne to further undergo R.l. for one month on each count. Learned Special Judge aiso dlrected that the ali sentences shatl run concurrentiy. 2. The judgment is chaiienged on the ground that without any cogent & ctinching evidence available on record, iearned tria! Court has convicted & sentenced the apoellant as aforesaid. 3. I have heard iearned counsel for the parties and perused the imi judgment as aiso the materiai availabie on record. 4 Case of the prosecution, in brisf, is that compiainant Kum. Indira Jangde (PW- 1) is a member of Scheduied Caste, on 6-2-2004 at about 12 noon when she was watching the crop in hsr fseid, the accused/appeiiant came to her and used filthy ianguage and with intent to outrage her modesty he used criminal foroe on her. The accused thrsw the comolainant on iand, but some how she couid escape from the spot. The complainant went to the field of Dinu Patel and narrated the inddent to him, thereafter, she went to her house where she narrated the incident to her mother, brother & other family members. She iodged the F.I.R. on the same day at 4 p.m. vide Ex.P-1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Broken pieces of bangles were seized vide Ex.P-4. The complamant was examined by Dr. S.K. Jamgade (PW-9) and founa" one swelting over upper tip having dimension of %" x %", one scrateh over ieft etbowjoint having dimension of 1" x 2", one abrasion over back of risht hand & sweiling over ieft leg having dimension of %" x %" vide Ex.P-7. Statsments of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after compietion of investigation, charge sheet w^s filed before the Speciai Judgs Duro. 5 In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appeliant, the prosecution has examsned as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the appeilant v/as recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pieaded innocence & false imptication. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned tria! Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. 6. in this case, the appeilant was released on bail vide order dated 24-3-2006. He was in custody during trial for three days. During the pendency of tiiis appeal he was absent to appear before the Registry of this Court, therefore warrant of arrest has been issued against him and he is in custodyfrom 15-4- 2008. Thus, the appeiiant has completed six months ofjail sentence by 15-10- 2008. 7. Learned counset for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence, he has not used any criminat foree to outrage the modesty of the comolainant on the ground that she beiongs to Scheduled Caste. 8. in order to estabiish complicity of the appellant in the crime in question, the prosecution has adduced ocuiar & medical evidence. Compiainant Kum. Indira Jangde (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that on the fatefui day at the time of incident she was watching her crop in the field, the appellant came to her and used filthy tanguage, he pressed her mouth and threw her on the land. The appellant tried to lay over her, but she escaped ftom the fietd and told the incident to Dinu Patei. Thereafter, she went to her house and narrated tFie incident to her famiiy members. Lastiy she lodged the report vide Ex.P-1. Spot mao was oreoared vide Ex.P-2 and her broken pieces of bangies were seized vade Ex.P-4. Smt. Kanas Bai (PW-2) mother of the complainant, Dinu Patel (PW-3), Duieshwar (PW-4) brother of the complainant & Dhurandas (PW-6) have supported the versron of the compiainant. Dinu Patei (PVV-3) has stated that the comDlainant told the incident to him in brief. Dr. S.K. Jamgade (PW-9) has stated that he has examlned compiainant Indira on 6-2-20Q4 and noticed injuries over !ip, hands & legs vide Ex.P-7. 9. Defence has cross-examined the complainant, but it has not been able to elicit anything in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. l-1er evidence is supported by the evidence of Smt. Kanas Bai, Dinu Patel (PW-3), Duieshwar (RA/-4) & Dhurandas (PW-6). She lodged the F.l.R. promptly. Her evidence is corroborated by the ocuiar evidence and the F.i.R. lodged by her which is sufficient for drawing inference that the appeilant has used criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant who is a woman. The appeliant has pressed her mouth and threw her down on the land, as such, he has also caused simple hurt to her. But the complainant has not stated anything to show that the appellant has used criminal foree with intent to outrage her modesty on the ground of her caste. Virtuatly at the time of incident. takina the benefit of her ioneiiness. the aDpellant has committed offence against a woman and not against the complainant on the ground of her caste. IQ.Learned trial Court after appreciating ths evidence availabie on record has convicted & sentenced the appeltant under Sectlons 354, 323 ofthe I.P.C. & 3 (1) (xi) of the Act. Conviction of the appellant under Sections 354 & 323 of the I.P.C. is sustainable. But hss conviction under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act is not sustainable. 11: Consequently, the appeai is partly allowed. Conviction & sentences of the appeilant under Sections 354 & 323 of the I.P.C. are maintained. However, conviction & sentences imposed upon him under Section 3 (1) (xi) of ths Act are set-aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. Fine amount of Rs.500/- paid by the appeilant shali be refunded to him. The appellant has already served the sentence of six months. He be reieased forthwith. if not reauired in any other case. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Soma