H ll . ’ ..... L ‘ CFoooooao911 ...... r s OURT f0? ,JIJDICAT‘URE j'AT JABALWR‘ Criminal .Appeal Non 1“ Of wi : Wag ¢argig§gm§ ‘udhya;af1 Bai Wfg o£ Manhar/ ohar, aged 4O y9ars, resldent of Kanpa, thana Tumgaon, dlstrlct Ralpur (MP) / Versus :P T A PE. LLAN MThe state 0£ Madhya Prades through District MagistraaEe Ralpur. ,, / wéMogw CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER sEcTxoN 374 OF cfgipm? ‘ L o'jENT ‘ RES PND H “ C g Ll B / L C h HIGH couRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT nILAspuR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Dbwaker) Criminal Appeai No. 211 of 1997 APP§LMNT Budhyarin Bai The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18.01.1997 passed by special Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 235 of _ 1996 convicting the , accused/appellant. under Section 3 (1) (x) of $ch’eduled"" Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous I imprisonment for six months and pay fineof Rs, 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. i 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.1995 a written ‘ complaint Ex.P-1 was made by the complainant Ratanlal $atnami (PW-1) alleging in it that on the date of incident at about 9,30 pr.'m. he had gone to the house of Manharan, the " husband of the accused/appellant to take paddy. As at that time Manharan was engaged in his professional work, he asked his wife Budhyarin to bring Katha (an wooden object ’ which is used to measure grains like paddy, wheat etc.). .When his wife (appellant) did not listen to him even after VERSUS g ‘ (\Q sked 2-3 times, Manaham himself fetched the Katha ands thereafter gave paddy to the complainant. In the meanwhile hen the complainant told' the accused/appenant that she did not listened to her husband nor bring the Katha in time, she abused him in the name of his caste. Based on this written report, FIR (un-exhibited) was registered on 20.07.1995. fter completion of investigation, Chalian was filed on _ 1.09.1995 against the appellant for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. ’9,— 3, So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution‘ti l has examined 06 witnesses in support of its case. $tatement. ‘~ = of the accused/appellant was also recorded .uncler section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she denied the to charges levelled against her and pleaded her innocence/and”, false implication in the case. 4. Alter hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted- and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. : 5. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 08.07.95 whereas the writ-ten report was made on 13.07.1995 that too, . without mentioning the/exact date of incidentand ultimately, the FIR was registered on 20.07.95 and this inordinate delay l has not been explained by the complainant as required under the law. He submits that as the incident had taken place in the house of the appellant and not in a place within'public i view, the accused/appellant cannot be convicted under that special Act. )- 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State counsel that the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance With law and there is no infirmity in the same. Kara R l; i. a w A , . 1 @ 7. Complainant Ratan (PWd) in his court “statement has stated that on the date of incident he had gone to the house of‘Manhran (husband of the appenant) to take paddy. As g! Manharan was busy with his professional work, he asked his wife (accused/appeliant) to give paddy to the complainant but :in spite of temng 3—4 times, the same was not given to him. " At last Manharna gave paddy to him and therefore he told the accused/appellant that had she given paddy immediateiy, by that time he would have left the place as the other persons were waiting for him. Upon hearing this accused/appellant called , him ‘Chamar’. About the conduct of the accused/appellant this witness also told one Gouthiya Soni of his village who was present there and thereafter he had left the place. On the second day the report was lodgedby him in the police station. iHe admits that he does not know as to on what date the incident had taken place. He has stated that if the date of incident is notmentioned in the written report he cannot'tell the reason. He further admits the. fact that had Manharan scolded his wife (accused/appellant), he would have felt satisfied and would not have lodged the report. -‘3' 8. Kapoor Chand (PW-2) has stated that on thedate of incident on seeing. qtia'rrel when he entered the house of the m accused/appellant, he saw her hurling abuses to the complainant. Nityanan'd (PW-3) and Firturam (PW-6) have made almost similar statements as. made by the complainant (Pwel). Bishnu (PW—4) has not supported the prosecution ‘ case and has been declared hostile. Dayaram (PW—'5) is the , Sarpanch to whom the incident had“ been reported by the. w complainant. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution nor has the FIR been exhibited. a u , @y _u- 9. Minute examination of the evidence makes it clear that the incident had taken place in the house of the appenant and ’ hereforé the sgme cannot be termed a piace within public view as defined under Section 3 (1). (x) of the Act which is ‘ one of the basic ingredients for hoiding the accused/appeliant guilty under this special Act. Furthermore, there is an unexplained lnordinatedelay in lodglng the FIR becausethe incident is alleged to have taken place on 08 07 95 whereas the written report was made on 13 O7 1995 even without mentioning the exact date of inCldent and the FIR was registered on 20 07 95 In these circumstances, according to the consndered opinion of this Court, the accused/appellant is ‘ entitled to get the benefit of doubt as on the basis of material j collected by the prosecution it would not be safe for this Court to uphold her conviction recorded by the Court below. 10. Accordinglyfhe appeal is allowed. Judgment’impugned '- is hereby set aside. Accusedlappeilant is acquitted of the ~ Charge levelled against her. As she is already on. bail, her bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker or Judge t g