Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1182 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Bhojpal

2005-11-22

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehgaon district Bhind in Criminal Case No. 756/97 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to state that Ad diam on 29.7.1991 when the prosecutrix was sleeping in her hut and her husband was not with her, at that juncture the accused entered inside the hut and caught hold her breast. He also torn the blouse which she was wearing, as a result of which she scolded and on hearing her shriek, Rajesh, Sahib Singh and Shivcharan arrived at the spot. The matter was reported to the police station by the prosecutrix. On lodging of the First Information Report, the criminal law was set in motion. The investigating agency arrived at the spot, prepared the spot map, recorded statements of the witnesses and completed the investigation. 3. A charge sheet was submitted in the competent Court. The trial Court on scrutiny of the charge sheet found that the offence under section 354, IPC has been prima facie made out and eventually framed charge under the said section. Needless to emphasise, the accused abjured his guilt. His defence is of false implication. 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and placed Ex. P-I and P-2 the documents on record. Though the defence of the accused is of false implication, however, he did not choose to examine any witness in his defence. 5. The trial Court X-rayed the entire gamut and ultimately came to hold that the charge is not proved beyond doubt. Hence, acquitted the accused-respondent. In this manner, the appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal. 6. It has been submitted by Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, learned Public Prosecutor for the State that in the offence under section 354, IPC, the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is required to be considered. According to learned counsel, if the evidence of prosecutrix is clear, cogent and trustworthy, no corroboration is required and the accused can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 7. According to learned counsel, if the evidence of prosecutrix is clear, cogent and trustworthy, no corroboration is required and the accused can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 7. Combatting the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, it has been contended by Shri Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent that the trial Court has given cogent reasons acquitting the respondent-accused which are based on appreciation of evidence, therefore no case for interference is made out. According to learned counsel if two plausible views are possible in the judgment of acquittal the view adopted by the trial Court should be accepted and therefore, since the trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent, therefore, this appeal be dismissed. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. There is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that if an offence has been committed under section 354, IPC, the testimony of prosecutrix alone should be considered and no corroboration is required. Thus, on the touchstone of this principle of law, I am examining the testimony of the prosecutrix. In the present case, the prosecutrix has been examined as PW 2. She has specifically stated that in the night when she was sleeping in the hut, accused came there and caught hold her breast, as a result of which grappling took place. This witness has specifically stated that in order to outrage her modesty accused caught hold her breast. She also screamed. According to this witness, Raju also shrieked as a result of which Sahib Singh and Shivcharan (her husband) arrived there. Thereafter, she went to Police Station to lodge the report. On her return, the police party arrived in the village. A torn blouse was seized. On close scrutiny of the testimony of the prosecutrix nothing is found in her evidence in order to hold that she is concealing the truth. On careful examination of her testimony, it is found that her evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy. This witness remained embedded in her version despite there being a roving cross-examination over her. Learned counsel for the accused respondent could not point out that how and in what manner the testimony of this witness should not be believed. 10. On careful examination of her testimony, it is found that her evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy. This witness remained embedded in her version despite there being a roving cross-examination over her. Learned counsel for the accused respondent could not point out that how and in what manner the testimony of this witness should not be believed. 10. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the accused-respondent that if the testimony of the prosecutrix is kept in juxtaposition to the statement of the other witnesses, there are certain contradictions in the version of the witnesses. The question is that why the testimony of the prosecutrix should be disbelieved. I have already held hereinabove that her testimony is clear, cogent and trustworthy an on scanning the evidence of the prosecutrix, the singular inference which can be drawn is that in order to outrage her modesty, the vile act of catchin1 hold the breast was committed by the accused-respondent. Thus, for his actus reus he is held to be guilty of offence under section 354, IPC. 11. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the accused-respondent is hereby sentenced to suffer six months RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. If the amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/- is not deposited, the accused-respondent shall further undergo a sentence of one month RI. The trial Court is hereby directed to do the needful in order to arrest the accused-respondent so as to serve the sentence. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed.