Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 897 (MP)

Ratan Singh v. State of M. P.

1994-12-07

RAJEEV GUPTA

body1994
JUDGMENT Petitioner Ratan Singh has filed this revision against the judgment dt. 5.5.92 in Criminal Appeal No. 10/92 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 354 of the IPC and sentence of 6 months R.I. recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar in Criminal Original Case No. 1043/91 through judgment dated 13.12.91. The short facts of the case are that on 29.11.86, prosecutrix Pragbai had gone to her field for cutting grass. In the evening at about 5 p.m. the petitioner caught hold her and pressed her breast with the intention of outraging her modesty. The prosecutrix raised hue and cry attracting Kirat Singh and Charan Singh. On their arrival the petitioner fled away. During the scuffle the glass bangles which were worn by the prosecutrix were broken. The prosecutrix came back to her house and narrated the incident to her husband Munna and thereafter on 30.11.80 lodged first information report at police station Jaisi Nagar. After completing the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication on account of enmity and background of strained relation with the husband of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. The trial Court relying upon the testimony of the prosecutrix Pragbai (PW-2) which was found corroborated by Charan Singh (PW-3), Kirat Singh (PW-4) and Munna (PW-1), convicted the petitioner as stated above. On appeal being filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence, the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar repelled the contentions of the petitioner and affirmed the order of the trial Court convicting the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it is a criminal revision and he is aware of the limitation about re-appreciation of evidence but in the present case in view of the statement of Kirat Singh (PW-4), the Courts below have erred in relying upon the testimony of prosecutrix Pragbai (PW -2). He further submitted that this approach by the Courts below is perverse and as such it is an exceptional case wherein the findings of fact needs to be interfered with. Kirat Singh (PW-4) stated that when he reached near nala for taking water, he saw prosecutrix Pragbai and petitioner Ratan Singh lying on the ground and when he shouted petitioner fled away. Kirat Singh (PW-4) stated that when he reached near nala for taking water, he saw prosecutrix Pragbai and petitioner Ratan Singh lying on the ground and when he shouted petitioner fled away. From the above statement of Kirat Singh, it is apparent that the story of the prosecution that Pragbai raised hue and cry and then Kiran Singh went to the spot is only an eye wash. From the statement of Kirat Singh, it is apparent that whatever was taking place between prosecutrix and petitioner Ratan Singh was all with tacit consent of prosecutrix Pragbai. It appears that when she was noticed lying in the company of petitioner Ratan Singh by Kirat Singh, she came out with the present story with a view to save her honour. A close scrutiny of the testimony of the prosecutrix Pragbai reveals that in her statement in the Court she has gone to the extent of saying that the petitioner not only outraged her modesty but even-committed rape. Surprisingly, in the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix herself, there is no such allegation of rape having been committed by the petitioner. In para 3 of her statement in the Court, Pragbai further stated that Kirat Singh and Charan Singh saw her and the petitioner, indulged in sexual intercourse, and both of them went to was the village making an alarm of it. She further stated that on account of this she was defamed in the village and had she not been defamed in the village, there was no matter of concern for her. Munna (PW-1), husband of the prosecutrix stated in para 3 that he went with the prosecutrix for lodging the first information report after 4 days, of the incident. The incident admittedly took place on 29.11.86. The first information report (Ex. P-1) purports to have been filed on 30.11.86. Shri R.K. Khare, learned Govt. Advocate could not reconcile the above inconsistency. From the above, there are reason to infer that the first information report (Ex. P-1) has been ante-dated. This fact has not been considered by the Courts below. The incident admittedly took place on 29.11.86. The first information report (Ex. P-1) purports to have been filed on 30.11.86. Shri R.K. Khare, learned Govt. Advocate could not reconcile the above inconsistency. From the above, there are reason to infer that the first information report (Ex. P-1) has been ante-dated. This fact has not been considered by the Courts below. From the above discussion of the evidence of prosecutrix Pragbai, her husband Munna, Charan Singh (PW-3) and Kirat Singh (PW-4) the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecutrix when caught by the villagers indulging in sexual act with the petitioner, in the absence of her husband in the village, came out with the allegation of use of force and of outraging of modesty by the petitioner. On such evidence, the petitioner cannot be convicted for the offence under section 354 of the IPC. As such the findings of Courts below holding the petitioner guilty under section 354 of the IPC cannot be upheld. For the foregoing reasons this revision is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under section 354 of the IPC and sentence of 6 months R.I. are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.