@ HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH. BILA$PUR Cr. A. No.365 of 1996 APPELLANT Hemtal @ Hamant. Versus RESPONDENT State of MP. Shrl O P Smgh counsel forthe appellant Shn Sudhxr Bajpayee Dy Govt Advocate for the State SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI PRA$HANT KUMAR MISHRA J. JUDGMENT (03/08/2011) The appeuant has preferred this appea! chanengingrhis conviction for committing offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduied Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) ‘Act,1 989. (2) Sentence of R.i. for six months and fine of Rs.100l- has been imposed upon the appellant. (3) Case of the prosecution is that at about 10.30 a.m. on 15104/1 991 the prosecutrix was going to nour mill along with her Bhanji. When she was returning back two boys namely appellant “Hemlal @ Hemant and Dhaneshwar Deewan restrained her and wanted sexual favour and on refusal she was molested by catching hold of her hands and pressing breast. The F.I.R. was lodged at about 18.45 hours on the same day. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was fried and in course of trial the prosecution examined eight witness to bring home the charges. i (4) ‘ln his accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.«, the;appeliant denied to have committed any'offence however he admitted that the l prosecutnx belongs to Satnaml caste and is a member of Scheduled Caste :l‘ community. The trial Court found that the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocitiee) M1989 is proved. (5) Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the lodging of typed F.l.R. is itself proof of fact that the entire allegations are after thought and because ofdispute between two parties in the village, the present false F.I.R. wasl'odged. According to learned counsel the offence under Section , 3(1 )(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (6) On the other hand, learned State counsel has supported impugned judgment and has submitted that the prosecution witnesseshave fully supported the case of prosecution and there is no scope of interference. (7). PW-l Rukhmani Bai is the victim who has been molested by the appellant. She has narrated the entire allegation as contained in F.l.R. and her case diary statement and has remained unshattered in cross- examination. Merely because there are two faction in the village and the accused belongs to one faction and the victim belongs to other faction, that by itself would not be a ground for false implication. It is common knowledge that factionalism is common in every village. (8) lt has been stated by Khilawan (PW-5) husband of the prosecutrix that he had accompanied his wife to the typing spot where the complaint was typed as was told by them. He says that after the matter was typed it was read over to them by some person. The scribe has been examined as PW-7 WlVViiay‘Shankar Sahu. This witness has turned hostile, but in cross \examination by the Public Prosecutor he has said that one women and one ‘/ l _r3.7 d ent i the mer MP. rte in 982 MPWN 47810 arge h F t osuti case srsuspcious; In he s Mon t d ate dla ad a ld o e rult of e hee bef Cou. resent case the incident took place at abou 10.30 i e rg and the report was lodged on the sae day. ln the absence of inordinate delay i lodging e F,l.R. t prosecution case would ot be branded a btful merely on the groun that the report was type and more whn the scribe/typist has suported the case that one wmen and o mle ember hd come to hi typing intitute and he typed th .l.. as per i dition. Statement of the prosecutrix has been supported by PW-3 Rukhmani who had accompanied the prosecutrix at the time when she had gone to the flour mill. Though, in the statement of PW-2 Omprakash, there was some difference in the timing of the incident. however, the said difference is not of such a nature which would demolish the entire prosecution case. (10) Learned Special Court has appreciated the entire evidence and has come to the conclusion that the ingredients on the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.1989 has been proved. As earlier discussed thisCourt has independently k/ . l appreciated the evidence and has not been able to reach to a diderent :11 R. d nd ha ct on gg b oro male member has come to his shop far getting the F,l. type a he s typed the matter as was diated to him. Thus, the versi of the psecutrix and her husand that they had gone to typing institute stands crobtated. (9) Learned counsel for the appellant has relie on judgm n att of Majbootslngh vs. State of epord '1 u tat when the .i.R. is typed he precon ii t e of ajbotsr‘gh (supra) he F.i.R. was lodge afterinordin ey n in these bckground the typed written report was he t b a es due deliberation. However, the same is not the cas r ore this rt in the p t n th monin m n th he n s dou d d so e p o ne a m a s s e FR ther cta l ‘ -14., conclusion. Thus. the finding of guilt recorded by the triakCoun is fuuy - supponed by the evidence available on record. It is‘accordingly amrmed. ‘ (11) There is no substance in this appeal. which fails and is heteby, dismissed. Sd/— ‘ Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge