@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR k - APPELLANT Criminal éppeal No. 94] 1999 ‘ , Somnath @ Sambhu Versus RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhatu'sarh) G: JUDGMENT Posr ON gaJULY, 2009 Judge SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR, J. g @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH r SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. Criminal Appeal No.94/ 1999 Somnath @ Sambhu, S/o Shyam Sunder, aged 27 years, R/o Sadgud, RS. Frezaxpur, Distn'ct Bastar (MP) (Now CG.) Appellant ’ Versus Respdndent Stats of Madhya Pradesh, through RS. Frézaxpur, w " Disu‘ict Bastar (MP) Criminal Appeal il/S 374, (2) of the Criminal Piocedure Code [1973] Heseet:— Shri Praiilll Bharat, counsel for the appellant. Shri U.K.S. Chandcl, Panel Lawyer for the State. A JUDGMENT (Delivered on 9447/2009) 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.1998 delivered in Special Case No.92] 1996, whereby the learned Special Judge, Special Co\urt, Bastar at Jagdalpur has convicted the appellant for commission of od‘ence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay line of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional RJ. for 3 months. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Sukra Bai is a member of scheduled tribe. On 21.12.1993 she along with the appellant and Sudari Bai had gone to visit dance at Dhaniyaloor. éppellant along with Sukra Bai and Sudari Bai returned nom there in the midnight. It is alleged that the appellant caught hold the hands of Sukra Bai on way. After three days father of Sulna Bai lodged FIR in the police station- Frezarpur, on which an on‘ence under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1‘) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and la. x Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 was registered against the appellant. The matter was investigated. After completion of the invesu'gation, eharge sheet was Eed in the court of Special Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, learned trial Judge hamed charge under Section 8‘54 of the IPC and Section 3(i) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and read over and‘explained to the appellant, who abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated the case. A 3. The learned Special Judge after appreciation of evidence available on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties convicted and ' sentenced the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC as above, however, he acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 3(i) (Xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of Special Case No.92] 1996. 5. Trial Court relying on the statements of Sukra Bai (P.W. 1) and Sudari Bai (P.W.2) has convicted the appellant. From the evidence, it is evident that Sukra Bai 8s Sudari Bai had gone to see the dance at Dhaniyaloor along with the appellant, and after enjoying the dance they were returning in the night in the company of the appellant. G, Samppat (P.W.3) father of Sulcra Bai and Investigating O$cer= Suryabhan Meshmm (P.W.4) and K.S. Rathiya (P.W.5) in their statements have categorically stated that in complaint’s community boys and girls by catching their hands goes and comes and that is not \\\ treated to be bad. From whole of the evidence there is nothing to .\\¥ \ @ suggest that appcllant is in order to outrage the modesty of Sukxa Bai caught hold of her hands. Report was lodged by Sukra Bai after 3 days. According to her’ a Panchayat was convened and therefom the repolt was lodged after three days, But prosecution has not produced any witness of the Panchayat who was mesent them. Thus the explanation for delay of lodging the repot 1s not acceptable Therefore 1t 1s clear that report was lodged after three days Without any reason i 6. From the above discussion, it is clear that beyond doubt prosecution failed toAestablish‘that the appellant assaulted or used criminal force on Sukra Bai in order to outrage her modesty. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed the conviction and sentence V / imposed upon the appellant is set aside. ;/ 5d]- R-L. Jhanwar Judge 3x