CF0000592 007 l Wmrw 9mm géo _ ____..‘ 3imrl°sia mam gm as ‘ 99 ‘ m 10 I 31‘T%m/3m%7‘m£f' 11w g’Em mm? I WEE ; Hr$n:‘as/97~m: =- . y , mam-um mm“ 3mm TragaT 26 TF7 m m ‘ a??? irT*IT1°r“°r a gr / fmmwg gnogrog‘ NEH 311% FEmrf?[ yam fair 1T; %¢7 3WW m7 378?;3 ya’ ammcf 3s ‘F‘avh‘ $ fam'r‘ m" rfkrq? 3{G%T Wih HTTT 378gig WE éofmao, 1973 I %‘ { / “ ‘ APPELLANT RESPONDENT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR LSB: Hon’ble Mr.T.P.Sharma,J.] Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 1990 State of Madhya Pradesh VERSUS Jotilal son of Udairam Sahu aged about 26 years, resident of Chantipili police station Damra District Bilaspur, M.P. z “x Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL counsel for the appeHant/State. CR!MMAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 13) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (30.9.2008) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.1990 passed Magistrate First Class, Sakti acquitting the accused/respondent of the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Previously after admission of the appeal respondent made appearance but on the subsequent dates no appearance was put on his behalf even after issuance of SPC. a 3. Judgment of the trial Court is challenged on the grod‘hd that without appreciation of the evidence available on‘record the accused/respondent has been illegally acquitted of the charge under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for the appellant/State and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. by the Judicial 4. .. 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not considered the statement of the complainant that respondent/accused used criminal force against her with an intention to outrage her modesty by pressing her breast. 5. Phool Bai (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that when she lifteel the bundle of wood, accused/respondent came and pressed her breast. When she tried to get rid of him, he threw down the bundle and caught her hand due to which her bangles were broken. On hearing her cries, Pirihin and Laxmin Bai came and then she went home and lodged the report. However, in the FIR she has stated that one’ Ratiram was also present there and she asked the respondent to help her. Accused/respondent came and after lifting the bundle onto her death, he pressed her breast and tore the blouse worn by her. There are contradictions in the FIR and the evidence before the Court to the effect that in the FIR she has stated that apart from the accused one Ratiram was also there but in her evidence she has not named Ratiram ”at all. 6. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code because the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Even if the trial Court has taken the erroneous view in acquitting the accused/respondent, the same cannot be disturbed. ln this cajse learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent on the basis of contradictory stand taken by her in the FIR and the evidence before the Court. 8. Consequently, the judgment impugend does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is without substance and the same is hereby dismissed. g ,. _ A ‘~.‘:\ O Sdl— T. P. Sharma Judge t