Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1363 (MP)

Ramratan v. State of M. P.

2006-12-01

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes), Guna, in Special Sessions Trial No. 07/99 dated 29.2.2000 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 3 (i) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 100/- for former section and rigorous imprisonment for six months for latter section. It is further ordered that in default of payment of fine he will suffer seven days' rigorous imprisonment. It is also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.1.1999 in midday at about 12:00 noon to 1.00 p.m. prosecutrix was alone in her house at Kishanpura and her husband had gone for irrigation in the field. Appellant came there with an intention to outrage her modesty. He caught hold her hand as nobody was nearby to her house and as soon as her husband came, he tried to catch him but he escaped and ran away. On hearing the cry, Jamunalal and Hansraj came on the spot and she lodged he report at Police Station Fatehgarh. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed. The trial Court convicted the appellant as stated aforesaid. The defence of the appellant is that he has falsely been implicated due to enmity. 3. As per the FIR, the incident took place at about 12 noon to 1:00 p.m. in the mid day and the report was lodged on the same day at 5:00 p.m. The distance from the place of occurrence to police station is about 8 kms. 4. Prosecution examined, in all, six witnesses. Guddi Bai (P.W.1) stated in her statement that she beongs to "Chamar Caste" and on the date of incident it is stated that she was in the house alone and her husband had gone for labour work. At that time, appellant came in the house and caught hold her hand. On her cry, nobody heard but at that time her husband Kesaria (P.W. 4) came there. Her husband tried to catch the appellant but he ran away by giving push to him. The report was lodged to the police station which is Ex. P-1. At that time, appellant came in the house and caught hold her hand. On her cry, nobody heard but at that time her husband Kesaria (P.W. 4) came there. Her husband tried to catch the appellant but he ran away by giving push to him. The report was lodged to the police station which is Ex. P-1. Police also prepared the seizure memo which is Ex. P-3 by which the pieces of bangles were seized. In her cross-examination, she stated that before giving the evidence in the Court her previous statement was read over and explained by the police and given the statement as per advice. She also admits that from her house, the house of lamunalal (P.W.3) and Hansraj (PW 2) is at short distance. In para 4 of her cross-examination, first she denied that there was any dispute between her husband Kesaria (P.W. 4) and Badri and her husband had beaten Badri but later on she admitted that Badri lodged the report against her husband alongwith the appellant. In para No.6, she denied that in the report Ex. P-1, the portion A to A was written by her about the cry at the time of incident. In para 9, she stated that Badri is her brother-in-law but it is not correct that due to report lodged by the appellant against her husband, she has lodged the false report against the appellant. 5. Kesaria (PW 4) stated that when he returned home, he saw that appellant was taking her wife (PW 1) inside the house. He tried to catch hold the appellant but he escaped and ran away. After the incident lamunalal (PW 3) and Hansraj (PW 2) also came there but Badri had not come. He is his brother and neighbour. The witness also deposed that due to breaking of bangles, contusions caused in the hand of his wife. In the last para of his cross-examination, he admits that he has beaten Badri but denied that appellant had gone alongwith Badri for lodging the report against him. This case was falsely reported against the appellant. 6. Hansraj (PW 2) has not supported the version of the prosecution and he stated that prosecutrix (PW 1) has not stated anything about the incident. This case was falsely reported against the appellant. 6. Hansraj (PW 2) has not supported the version of the prosecution and he stated that prosecutrix (PW 1) has not stated anything about the incident. In cross-examination, he also narrated the same story that when Badri had gone to lodge the report against the husband of the prosecutrix, appellant had also gone alongwith him and the prosecutrix lodged the report due to enmity. Jamuna (PW 3) also turned hostile. He has also stated that complainant (PW 1) has not informed anything about the incident. His house is nearly 100 ft. from the residence of the prosecutrix. His statement is altogether similar as given by Hansraj (PW 2). 7. In his examination-in-chief the defence taken by the appellant is that the husband of the complainant and Badri are brothers-in-law and there was quarrel between them and he went to lodge the report against the husband of the complainant alongwith Badri and therefore he has falsely been implicated by the complainant. 8. During the arguments, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the story as written in the FIR was not corroborated by both the independent witnesses who reside near the house of the complainant and from the evidence of the complainant (PW 1) and her husband Kesaria (PW 4),. it appears that Badri lodged the report against the husband of the complainant and the appellant had also gone alongwith Badri. Therefore, the appellant has falsely been implicated by the complainant with an ulterior motive. It is also argued that it is unnatural that in day time, on her cry, nobody came there in the house and only her husband came on that moment. Both the independent witnesses who had come to the spot just after the incident did not support the prosecution story. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on Nanka s/o Chimliya, Hardaspur v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [ 1991 MPLJ 345 ] in which it is held by the Court that in order to make out a case under section 354, Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that an assault was made or criminal force was used against any woman and secondly, to prove that it was with intention to outrage or knowing that it was likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. It is also held that mere fact that she was caught hold by the accused, would not by itself go to constitute an offence under section 354, Indian Penal Code, conviction and sentence under section 354 of IPC was set aside. 9. The offence under section 354 of IPC is such that it is easy to make accusation but difficult to rebut it. Apart from the above citation, it appears that the story put forward by the prosecution and the circumstances of the case do not inspire confidence on the mind of the Court. Keeping in view that the parties had tensed relations with each other, therefore, in the circumstances, it was necessary for the prosecution that the prosecution story should be corroborated by the independent witnesses. 10. After considering, the evidence adduced by the prosecution and keeping in view that above facts, it appears that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction recorded by the Special Court deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence as recorded by the Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes), Guna, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. If the amount of fine has been deposited by the appellant, it be refunded to him. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged.