IN THE t®GHOMBT OF «ADHYA i®ABESHATs JAE w . Crlainal Appsal No. .^ APPELLANT s ^ta'te ef M.P. tiu-ough P.S. GSaBilca"-" Teh. & Dtstt. Rajnandgabn. f /' RESPONDENTS ' -VEBSHS-'; ..^y^. -.1/ ..:' <^'_ -/-'"1 : 1. Bapana-th S/o Kashinafh J'ogt,, aged 25,years R/o MuA&par, -' . Baj:nanelgaon :(Mpy^^ . ..'^' . •i.i^ 2.; Sanuna'bti ®/oKash3.aa' Jo<g;5.|,|/" • ,.::^a!ge«ji'l^%r:yeai-^:::R/o-:;'Mia<l&paK] • 'IS&./J&'BAStt. '.^ajnanagasn: ABPI.ICATION EISi LEA,VE_^re&..&PBEAI-,::® B5.^SS6£2TitOSil,3teI.3^:^St.R. :CKSS^S^r-^f ^^ }3t53^^-SSim -37Q^^C&X^S~~:"^W?^'^^^ 'TA~~a"~~..-:;'^^^'%l-|i It Belng aggrieved by the Judcfment daied 26/10/§3_gaSSe;ta3yj| fi,: K w^ •am\ ai .1 :'^: xfl tS'S1 jHii s$a ::f» ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 1994 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) Bapanath and another. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appellant. Since none for the respondents, Shri Santosh Bharat Advocate who is in the panel of High Court Legal Service Committee, is appointed as counsel for the respondents. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 377 OF TME CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDER (06.01.2010) Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated26.10.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No. 142/1991 convicting the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 325/34 IPC but acquitting them of the charge under section 354/34 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 26.5.1991 FIR Ex. P-1 was lodged by Gangabai (PW-1) alleging that on 25.5.1991 at about? p.m. when she was returning after answering the callofthe nature, respondent/accused - Bapanath caught hold of her right hand and started dragging her and when she raised an alarm, her mother and brother came there where the respondent/accused Bapanath started beating her mother Gaya Bai and brother Shivaji with club as aresult ofwhich her mother Gaya Bai and brother Shivaji received injuries on their head and hand. On the report lodged by the complainant crime No. 38/1991 was registered for the offence punishable under sections 354 and 323/34 1PC against the respondents/accused.. While filing the challan the police added the offence under Section 3251PCalso. v '/] l^ !»IBi*»l-,. ^^ fc—^ v s' y:^ -2-- 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, two witnesses namely Manohar (DW-1) and Pardeshi (DW-2) were also examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the Court below convicted the respondents/accused for the charges under sections 323 and 325/34 IPC butacquitted them of the charge under section 354/34 IPC. 5. Counsel for the appellanVState submits that the acquittal of the respondents/accused under section 354/34 IPC is not in accordance with law and the Court below oughtto have convicted them for the saidoffence also on the basis of evidence of Ganga Bai (PW-1) and Gaya Bai (PW-2). 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/accused supports the judgment impugned so far as it relates to acquittal of the respondents/accused for the offence under section 354/34 IPC and submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is the offence under section 354/34 IPC is not made out against the respondents/accused as the basic ingredients of the said provision are missing in this case. 7. Ganga Bai (PW-1) has merelystated that when she was returning after answering the call ofthe nature, respondenVaccused Bapanath caught hold of her right hand and started dragging her and when she raised an alarm, her mother and brother came there where theywere beaten by the respondent/accused - Bapanath. She has further stated that she was notaware ofthe reason why the respondent/accused Bapanath had caught hold of her hand and what was going on in his mind. She has not stated in her statement that the respondent/accused - Bapanath had caught hold of her p 7 » kwn%iK.,s ,- ~'«g$a ^^-y hand with an intention to outrage her modesty. As regards the incident of beating, this witness has made specific allegation against the respondents/accused but they have already been convicted by the Court below for the said charge. Gaya Bai (PW-2) and Shivaji (PW-3) have also not made any allegation against the respondents/accused for an offence under section 354 IPC. Ranunath (PW-4) - the father of the complainant has stated in his evidence that there was some dispute between the respondents/accused and the complainant. Similar is the statement of the other witnesses. 8. After going through the material available on record this Court is of the opinion that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the ingredients of section 354 IPC are not attracted to this case because the prosecution has not established the fact that there was any intention on the part of the respondents/accused to outrage the modesty of the complainant. Moreover, this Court is very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence under Section 354/34 IPC and convicting them for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and three months respectivelywith fine of Rs. 300 and 200 respectively for both the offences plus default stipulations, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Sdl- pritinker Diwaker Judge p / '^ ^