Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 544 (MP)

Sarman Aheer v. State of M. P.

2009-04-24

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence dated 1.6.1999 passed by Special Judge, Satna in Special Case No. 45/1998, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and section 354 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 6 month as with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment for 3 month as. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 20.8.1998 complainant Rampyari, Chamar by caste, resident of village Khatola, district Satna submitted an application at Police Station Kothi to the effect that on 19.8.1998 she had gone to forest for grazing she-goats. Appellant had also gone there for the same purpose. He put off his clothes, caught hold of her hand, gagged her mouth by towel and grappled with her. Her dhoti was torn. At her crying he went away by abusing and threatening her. On this report Crime No. 49/98 under sections 354, 294 and 506-B of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. Map was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Her caste certificate was obtained. After completing the usual investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Satna. 3. Appellant was charged under sections 294, 354, 506-B of IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and appellant also examined 2 witnesses in his defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found appellant guilty under section 354 of IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in para No. 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds mentioned therein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Only the interested witnesses have been examined. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds mentioned therein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Only the interested witnesses have been examined. There are several contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant lodged the report against the husband of the complainant on 19.8.1998 and thereafter on the next day complainant lodged the false report in retaliation of the report lodged by the appellant. There is enmity in between the parties. The appellant has been falsely implicated on this count. Police has not seized any clothes. No injury has been proved on the person of complainant. The prosecution has not proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 5. On the contrary, Shri T.K. Modh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. He has rightly been convicted and sentenced hence does not call for any interference. 6. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 354 of IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act? 7. Rampyari (PW 1) is the star witness of this case but she is improving her statement before the Court as she has stated that appellant threw her on the ground and laid down over her, this fact does not find place in her report Ex. P-l. She has also stated that she sustained the injuries but neither her husband Munna (PW 2) nor her Dewar Premlal (PW 3) have noticed the injuries on her person. No medical evidence has been adduced in this behalf. This fact also does not find place in her police report Ex.P-l and hence giving exaggerated evidence. She has stated that her clothes and dhoti were torn but police has not seized such clothes of this witness. There are contradictions and omissions in her evidence. Apart from it, her statement is contradictory to some extent from other prosecution witnesses. This fact also does not find place in her police report Ex.P-l and hence giving exaggerated evidence. She has stated that her clothes and dhoti were torn but police has not seized such clothes of this witness. There are contradictions and omissions in her evidence. Apart from it, her statement is contradictory to some extent from other prosecution witnesses. She has stated that when she returned from forest her husband i was not at the house whereas her husband Munna (PW 2) has stated that he was at his house when her wife returned. Thus there is inconsistencies, in the statement of Rampyari (PW. 1) and Munna (PW 2). 8. Munna (PW 2) and Premlal (PW 3) were not there at the place of occurrence. They are giving the evidence as stated by Rampyari (PW 1). Though they have stated that Rampyari told them that the appellant grappled and threw her on the ground but the contradictions and omissions have been brought on record in their statements. Since the evidence of these witnesses cannot give strength to her evidence. 9. One glaring feature of this case is that appellant lodged report Ex. D-l at Police Station Kothi on 19.8.1998 against the husband of Rampyari (PW 1). Both the witnesses Munna and Premlal have admitted that appellant lodged report against Munnaa prior to the report lodged by 25Rampyari (PW 1). So the possibility that Rampyari (PW 1) lodged report against appellant on 20.8.1998 in retaliation of the report lodged by appellant himself against the husband of Rampyari on 19.8.1998 cannot be ruled out. 10. Another defence of the appellant is that there has been some dispute relating to agricultural land in between the father of the appellant and father-in-law of Rampyari (PW 1). Several documents have been filed by defence in this behalf. Munna (PW 2) and Premlal (PW 3) have also admitted such litigations in between the parties. The enmity is established in between the parties. 11. Since there are contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and Rampyari (PW 1) has exaggerated and improved her version, therefore, her evidence is not reliable. Munna (PW 2) and Premlal (PW 3) are the related witnesses. They are in inimical terms with the appellant, therefore, falsely implication can not be ruled out. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Munna (PW 2) and Premlal (PW 3) are the related witnesses. They are in inimical terms with the appellant, therefore, falsely implication can not be ruled out. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 12. Consequently, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under section 354 of IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.