Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 729 (MP)

Prem Lal Soni v. State Of M. P.

2008-06-16

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 9-3-1994 passed by Special Judge (SC and ST), Jabalpur in Special Criminal Case No. 35/91 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 1 month. 2. The prosecution case in short is that Manishabai, who was aged 16 years was going to village Karela on 29-6-1991 with her brother Sardar Singh by cycle. His cycle became out of order, therefore, he went to village Kuagaon for its repairing. She was going on foot. At about 9.00 a.m., appellant came there and asked her to take currency note of Rs. 10/- and to accompany him to forest. She responded asserting that she will hit by Chappals. Then the appellant caught hold of her hand, dragged her towards forest to outrage her modesty. 3 persons came there. They caught hold of the appellant. Meanwhile his brother also returned to whom she narrated the entire story. The report was lodged at P. S. Barhi. Crime No. 106/91 under section 354, Indian Penal Code was registered. Map was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under section 354, Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST Act. 3. The appellant stood charged under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act that on 29-6-1991 at about 9.00 a.m. at village Karoni (Kala) P. S. Barhi not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, assaulted or used force to Manishabai daughter of Babusingh Gond, of Kalehra, a member of Scheduled Tribe, with intend to dishonour or outrage her modesty and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3(1)(11) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined 5 witnesses whereas appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant under section 3(1)(11) of the Act, and sentenced thereunder as stated in para 1 of this judgment. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined 5 witnesses whereas appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant under section 3(1)(11) of the Act, and sentenced thereunder as stated in para 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence, appellant preferred instant criminal appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. Shri Shyam Vishwakarma was engaged by the appellant as his counsel but he did not appear to argue the case on the date of hearing on 21-9-1994 and 7-5-2008. Since the appeal was pending from 1994, therefore, Ku. Rashmi Rajak, Advocate, has been appointed from the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee to argue on behalf of the appellant so that the case may be expeditiously disposed of finally. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt hence the finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and appellant is entitled for acquittal. 6. On the contrary, Shri S. K. Kashyap, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent-State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced, therefore, no interference is called for. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal is whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989. 8. Manisha (PW-5) has stated in her deposition that she was going to village Karaundi with his brother Sardar Singh. He went to the village for getting his cycle repaired which was out of order. The appellant started to molest her. When he tried to catch hold of her, she hit him by Chappal. At the same time, Sarpanch of Kaugaon came there. Passenger bus also arrived there and she went to lodge the report. Her testimony in cross-examination has nowhere been shattered. Her evidence is quite natural, probable, trustworthy and reliable. It inspires confidence. She courageously faced appellant in such a lonely place. Her evidence alone is sufficient to make conviction in such facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Passenger bus also arrived there and she went to lodge the report. Her testimony in cross-examination has nowhere been shattered. Her evidence is quite natural, probable, trustworthy and reliable. It inspires confidence. She courageously faced appellant in such a lonely place. Her evidence alone is sufficient to make conviction in such facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Sardar Singh (PW-3) has given evidence as if he is the eye-witness but he was at a long distance therefore could not witnessed the incident. His evidence can only be accepted that on that day Manishabai was going with him on cycle and when his cycle became out of order, he went away for its repairing and this incident occurred when Manisha was alone. 10. Chandra Shekhar Giri (PW-1) and M. G. Goswami (PW-2) who reached at the spot on hearing the cries of a girl. They saw a girl and appellant there. Girl told him that the appellant was molesting her and caught her forcibly. On asking the appellant he refused to do so. 11. Thus, the evidence of Manisha finds support from the evidence of these 2 witnesses who have clearly stated that she told them that appellant was molesting and forcibly catching her. 12. Manishabai (PW-5) has lodged the report Ex.P-1 which was written by R. L. Mishra (PW-4). The incident is of 29-6-1991 at 9.00 a.m. and the report was lodged on the same day at 10.10 a.m. Thus, the report is promptly lodged. Manisha was not knowing this appellant from before. She was not acquainted with him, therefore, there was no question of goodwill or ill will with him hence there is no question to falsely implicate him. 13. The defence that he only asked her as to where she was going is not tenable for the simple reason that no girl would hit by Chappal on such asking. As he was not acquainted with her, there was no any occasion to ask her. The defence that she herself demanded Rs. 10/- is also not acceptable. The defence is only afterthought and palpably wrong. 14. There is ample evidence that appellant assaulted or used force to Manisha with intend to dishonour or outrage her modesty. All the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act have been proved by the prosecution. 10/- is also not acceptable. The defence is only afterthought and palpably wrong. 14. There is ample evidence that appellant assaulted or used force to Manisha with intend to dishonour or outrage her modesty. All the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act have been proved by the prosecution. Hence the trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. Hence such fining and sentence is hereby affirmed. This appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. 15. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be directed to appear before CJM, Jabalpur on 21-7-2008 for serving out the remaining part of the sentence.