Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1 (CHH)

STATE OF CHHAITISGARH v. KEERTAN SINGH

2002-01-01

FAKHRUDDIN

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the order dated 9-11-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Section 456 and 354.ofthe Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 28-5-1999 at about 2.30 in the night, the respondent entered into the house of complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of PW 2 Sumitra Bai. On the next day report was lodged and 'liter due investigation challan was filed. 3. The accused abjured his guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated. 4. During investigation, the prosecution examined PW 1 Sumitra Bai wife of Shatrughan, PW 2 Sumitra Bai wife of Khikram, PW 3 Ghusiya, PW 4 Anandi Bai, PW 5 Shatrughan, PW 6 Bodhan Singh and PW 7 Padumnath. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. PW 1 Sumitra Bai wife of Shatrughan, PW 3 Pusaiya and PW 4 Anandi Bai did not support the prosecution version and they were declared hostile. PW 5 Shatrughan has also stated that he did not know about the incident. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the State contended that the accused has wrongly being acquitted. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that evidence of PW 2 Sumitra Bai is not reliable. It was submitted that the accused has falsely been implicated, because of previous enmity. 8. The evidence of the case consists of PW 2 Sumitra Bai wife of Khikram. She had stated that the accused entered into the house, took out bulb and thereafter pushed her mouth and pressed her hand. When she shouted, the accused escaped. The report was lodged on the next day without there being any delay. The learned trial Judge has discarded her version on the ground that she has not been able to state as to why the accused caught hold of her hand. The learned trial Court was absolutely not at all justified in discarding her version. The approach is wholly illegal and against the settled principals of law and caused miscarriage of justice. The entry of the accused in the house in the night and thereafter taking out the bulb, catching the hand and pressing the mouth is such which attracts the provisions of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The approach is wholly illegal and against the settled principals of law and caused miscarriage of justice. The entry of the accused in the house in the night and thereafter taking out the bulb, catching the hand and pressing the mouth is such which attracts the provisions of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Sections 354 & 456 of the Indian Penal Code are quoted below: "354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." "456. Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night - Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or housebreaking by night, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine." 9. The evidence on record of PW 2 Sumitra Bai is sufficient to attract the provisions of Sections 354 and 456 of Indian Penal Code. 10. This Court is conscious that a judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside unless there are compelling and substantial reasons. It can be set aside if the lower Court's verdict is patently perverse as held by the Apex Court in the case of Toto Singh Vs. State of Punjab I. "Perversity" in this context implies that the verdict of acquittal is one which no reasonable judge could have given. In the present case, the person enters in the house at about 2.30 in the night, after entering takes out the bulb and shuts the mouth of the lady and catches her hand and these acts are sufficient to conclude that it was for outraging the modesty. The acts speak for the mselves and a judge is expected to apply judicial mind while deciding a case and the approach has to be judicious and not capricious. In the instant case, overwhelming evidence has come on record and perversity is writ large. The entire approach of the lower Court is manifestly shocking as it caused miscarriage of justice. The acts speak for the mselves and a judge is expected to apply judicial mind while deciding a case and the approach has to be judicious and not capricious. In the instant case, overwhelming evidence has come on record and perversity is writ large. The entire approach of the lower Court is manifestly shocking as it caused miscarriage of justice. So far as intention is concerned, suffice it to say that intention is not the sole criterion of the offence under Section 354 IPC and an offence under Section 354 IPC can also be committed by the person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such acts the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are things of the mind and cannot be demonated like physical objects. The existence of such knowledge or intention otherwise should be gathered from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence under Section 354, IPC is said to have been committed. The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body, young or old, intelligent or imbecile, aware or sleeping. The women possess modesty capable of being outraged, and whoever uses criminal force to her with intent to outrage her modesty, commits an offence punishable under section 354 IPC. 11. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties the impugned order dated 9-11-2000 is set aside. The respondent is convicted for offence punishable under Section 354 & 456 of Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard and considered learned counsel on the question of sentence. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has already under gone the jail sentence for 15 days and he may be sentenced to the period already under gone. 14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is sentenced to the period already under gone with a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine, to further under go R.I. for 5 days. 15. The production warrant of the accused from Jail goes to show that he is required in other case. The order of his release is passed only for this case and all concerned to know about this fact. 16. 100/-and in default of payment of fine, to further under go R.I. for 5 days. 15. The production warrant of the accused from Jail goes to show that he is required in other case. The order of his release is passed only for this case and all concerned to know about this fact. 16. Before parting, this Court appreciates the veluable assistance rendered by Sushri Neeta Keshrawani, amicus curiae. Appeal against acquittal allowed and judgment of the lower court set aside.