Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1245 (MP)

Satyendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2003-11-14

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2003
JUDGMENT This appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.7.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Gwalior in Special Case No. 172/96 convicting the appellant under section 3540f the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and under section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further simple imprisonment of one month. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 8.7.1995 at 9.00 a.m. the prosecutrix PW 1 Basanti Bai went to take her bath near a gauda (small pond), where she undressed herself and was wearing only the undergarments, at that juncture, appellant came and with an intention to outrage her modesty, tried to snatch her last cloth (panty). The prosecutrix refrained the accused and scuffled with him as result of which she as well as the accused sustained injuries. On being screamed by her, some persons arrived at the spot and on seeing them, the appellant fled from the spot. The prosecutrix thereafter came to her house and narrated the incident to her parents and thereafter a Dehatinilish (Fx. P-1) was lodged by her on the same day at about 9.30 p.m. On lodging the First Information Report, the Criminal law set in motion and the investigation was started. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, sent the prosecutrix for medical examination, prepared the spot map and after completing the investigation filed a charge sheet. The learned trial Judge framed charges punishable under sections 376(1)/511 of IPC as well as under section 3(2) (v) of the Act, against the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence. His defence is of maladrait implication. In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and placed Ex. P-1 to P-8 the documents on record. The learned trial Judge after scanning the evidence came to hold that the appellant committed offence under section 354 of IPC and also held that he further committed offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and eventually convicted him under these sections and passed the sentences mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. P-1 to P-8 the documents on record. The learned trial Judge after scanning the evidence came to hold that the appellant committed offence under section 354 of IPC and also held that he further committed offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and eventually convicted him under these sections and passed the sentences mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. In this appeal Shri Sunil Soni, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case, as there is no evidence against the appellant to convict him either under section 354 IPC or under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, and therefore this appeal may be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. Combatting the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, Shri J.P. Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submitted that on going through the FIR, medical report of the appellant and prosecutrix and the oral testimony of prosecutrix the case is fully proved and the learned trial Court did not err in convicting the appellant. On going through the FIR (Ex. P-7) it is gathered that there is specific averments against the appellant. It has been narrated in the FIR that when the prosecutrix went to take her both in the gauda (small pond) and took off her clothes, at that juncture appellant came with an intention to outrage her modesty and tried to snatch her last cloth (panty). It has also been narrated in the said FIR EX.P-7 that she scuffled with the accused as a result of which she sustained injuries and on her screaming, some persons arrived on the spot and on seeing those persons the appellant fled from the spot. The version stated by the prosecutrix in her report Ex. P-7 has been medically corroborated. The medical report of prosecutrix is Ex. P-S showing the injuries sustained by her. The accused was also medically examined and his medical report is Ex. P-4, in which contusions and abrasions have been found. Apart from the above said documentary evidence, there is specific statement of PW 1 Basanti Bai, she in her statement has specifically narrated the act of the appellant, which I have mentioned hereinabove. The accused was also medically examined and his medical report is Ex. P-4, in which contusions and abrasions have been found. Apart from the above said documentary evidence, there is specific statement of PW 1 Basanti Bai, she in her statement has specifically narrated the act of the appellant, which I have mentioned hereinabove. After X-raying the entire material placed on record, it is clear like a noon day, that the appellant with an intention to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix applied criminal force and therefore the trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under section 354 IPC and by this judgment I hereby give my stamp of approval to the reasonings ascribed by the Trial Court. However, after scanning the FIR and the testimony of the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that any of the ingredients of section 3(1) (xi) of the Act has been proved by the prosecution, merely the prosecutrix belonged to a particular caste, is in itself no ground to convict the appellant under the said section. Thus, the appellant is acquitted under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. Yet there is another fact of the case. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant remained in custody for near about 18 days. This position has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State. Looking to the period, which the appellant had undergone, it would not be justifiable to send the appellant back behind the bars. He shall be enlarged for the period he has suffered. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand). It has been contended by Shri Sunil Soni, learned counsel for the appellant, that amount of fine of Rs. 500/- had already been deposited, if that is so, let the balance amount of Rs. 2,500/- be deposited by the appellant within a period of four months from today in the trial Court, failing which the appellant shall undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The entire amount of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) be paid to the prosecutrix. The Trial Court is thereby directed to do the needful in this regard and the said amount be paid to the prosecutrix as early as possible. In the result, appeal succeeds in part. The entire amount of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) be paid to the prosecutrix. The Trial Court is thereby directed to do the needful in this regard and the said amount be paid to the prosecutrix as early as possible. In the result, appeal succeeds in part. Conviction of the appellant under section 354 of IPC is hereby maintained, his conviction under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is hereby set aside and he is acquitted from that charge. However, the amount of sentence is enhanced as indicated hereinabove. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds is discharged.