Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 18 (MP)

Sheru v. State of M. P.

2020-01-07

S.K.AWASTHI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") against the judgment dated 5.4.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmpuri, District-Dhar in Special Sessions Trial No.12/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under section 354(A) of IPC, 1860 read with section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity 'The Act, 2012') and sentenced to undergo 1 year and 3 years R.I, with fine amount of Rs. 2000/- under each sections and usual default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that on 7.9.2017, complainant lodged a report at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar that 5.9.2017, when she was working at the field of Radhu Pan Vala, then the appellant came there and caught hold of her from the back in order to outrage her modesty, however, she raised alarm and somehow relieved herself from the applicant and ran away from the spot. It is also alleged that the appellant threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses the incident to anyone. Thereafter, prosecutrix returned to her home and narrated the incident to her parents. On the basis of which Police registered FIR bearing crime No. 365/2017 against the appellant for offence under sections 354(A), 506 of IPC, 1860 read with section 7/8 of 'The Act, 2012'. 3. During investigation, police prepared spot map, recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the appellant. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under sections 354(A) and 506 of IPC, 1860 read with section 7/8 of 'The Act, 2012'. 4. Appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, however, he has not examined any witnesses in his defence. 5. Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence under sections 354(A) of IPC, 1860 read with section 7/8 of 'The Act, 2012' and sentenced to undergo 1 year and 3 years R.I, respectively with fine amount of Rs.2000/- under each sections and usual default stipulation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant in absence of any cogent material or evidence on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant in absence of any cogent material or evidence on record. The incident took place in a field where 8 to 10 women were working along with the prosecutrix however, except prosecutrix no other independent witness was produced before the Court. There is a delay of two days in filing the FIR and no plausible explanation has been offered regarding the delay. 7. Counsel further submitted that the appellant and his owner Radhu Pan Wala have scolded the prosecutrix for not performing her duties properly. On account of which she, on the pressure of her parents has falsely implicated the present appellant. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix and the same has been overlooked by the trial Court. Hence counsel prayed that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and argued that guilt of the appellant/accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, therefore, he prayed that the appeal of the accused/appellant be dismissed and judgment passed by the trial Court be confirmed. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 10. Victim (PW1) deposed that 5 to 7 months back at about 2.00 pm, she was working in the field of Radhu Pan Vala at that time the appellant came there from behind and caught hold of her with bad intention. When she tried to cry, the appellant threatened her with dire consequences, if she reveals the incident to anyone. Thereafter she came to her house and narrated the incident to her mother, maternal uncle and maternal grand mother. Then she went to Police Station with her mother and her maternal uncle and lodged FIR (Ex.P-1). After lodging FIR Police sent her to the hospital for medical examination. 11. Jyoti (PW2) and Jaswant Singh (PW3) testified that the victim is aged about 17 years. Eight months back, victim went to the field of Radhu Pan Vala for working. In the evening at about 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. she came to house and informed that the present appellant came from back side and caught hold of her and he also threatened her to kill. Eight months back, victim went to the field of Radhu Pan Vala for working. In the evening at about 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. she came to house and informed that the present appellant came from back side and caught hold of her and he also threatened her to kill. Thereafter, they took the prosecutrix to the Police Station, where she lodged the FIR. 12. From the statement of Jyoti (PW2) and Jaswant Singh (PW3) it appears that at the time of the incident they were not present on the place of occurrence and they have given statement regarding the incident on the basis of information given by the victim, therefore, the case of the prosecution is solely based on the statement of victim (PW1). 13. Victim (PW1) accepted in her cross-examination that at the time of incident, wife of Radhu Pan Vala and 8 to 10 labourers were also working in the field, therefore, it does not seems reliable that in the presence of so many people the appellant will do such an act. It is also worth to note that victim did not disclose the incident to the aforesaid persons, which also creates doubt about the incident. Victim further admitted that immediate after the incident at about 3.00 p.m., she came back to her house, however, she has not gone to the Police Station on the same date for lodging FIR. She also accepted that Police Station Dhamnod is situated 5 kilometers from village Sundrail and by foot she can reach the Police Station Dhamnod within an hour, however, she did not lodge the FIR on the same date and she failed to explain the reasons for delay in lodging the FIR. 14. Victim (PW1) accepted that the present appellant-Sheru is also working in the field of Radhu Pan Vala and he supervises the work of the labourers employed in the field. Although the victim has denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that she and her mother were not working properly, therefore, Sheru told them that if they did not work properly, then he will make complaint to Radhu Pan Vala, but, Jyoti (PW2), the mother of the victim, in her cross-examination, told that prior to the incident the appellant scolded her and the victim that they are not doing their work properly. This fact is also corroborated by statement of Babloo (PW4). This fact is also corroborated by statement of Babloo (PW4). Therefore, the defence taken by the applicant cannot be ignored that the victim and her mother were not doing their work satisfactorily, therefore, he expressed his annoyance in their work due to which the victim and her mother have falsely implicated him in the present crime. 15. From the appreciation of the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the false implication of the applicant in the present crime cannot be ruled out, therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge framed against the appellant for offence under sections 354(A) and 506 of IPC, 1860 read with section 7/8 of 'The Act, 2012' beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has not considered the aforesaid fact and wrongly convicted the appellant for offence under section 354(A) of IPC, 1860 read with section 7/8 of 'The Act, 2012'. Hence the present appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 5.4.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmpuri, District-Dhar in Special Sessions Trial No.12/2018 is set aside and the appellant is hereby acquitted from the aforesaid offence. 16. Appellant is in bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance. 17. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No. 3606/2019 stands allowed. Certified copy as per rules. ...................