Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 324 (CHH)

AMAR KUMAR PAIKRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2020-03-06

ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02/05/2002 passed in Special S.T. No. 159/2000 by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Prevention of Atrocities, Distt. Raipur (C.G.), whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code R/w Section 3(i) (xi) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation. 2. Facts of the case are that on 05.07.1999 at about 6 PM, complainant Kamleshwari Lehre (PW-1) lodged a report in concerned Police Station to the effect that on 05.07.1999 itself at about 11 AM when she was in her house as her husband had gone to Raipur (C.G.) and her father-in-law had gone to attend work in a factory. Her children aged about 3 years and 7 years were in the house, at that time the Appellant came to the house of complainant Kamleshwari for performing mason work in the kitchen. It is alleged that at that time he removed his sleepers and shirt by saying that the climate is too hot. The Appellant asked with the complainant as to what the work to be performed and upon that she went the kitchen to apprise him about the nature of work to be done, however, at this juncture the Appellant caught hold her hand with intent to outrage her modesty, he kissed her on her cheeks. She any how separated herself and narrated the incident to her neighbors Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) and Shiv Ratri Lahre (PW3) respectively. When her father-in-law came back from the factory at 12 AM, the incident was also narrated to him. It is further the case of prosecution that Appellant admitted his guilt before Shiv Prasad Lahre (Father-in-law), Shiv Dayal Lahre (Neighbor), Pairru and Budhu (labourer). On the basis of said background, offence has been registered. It has been further alleged that on 02.07.1999 also, the Appellant has misbehaved with the complainant but report was not lodged by her as she thought that her prestige may be eroded however on 05.07.1999, when the act has been repeated, the report has been lodged. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed. Trial Court framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed. Trial Court framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C has been recorded wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. However, four defence witnesses namely Ramadhar (DW1) Pairruram (DW2) Baliram (DW3) Trilok (DW4) have been examined by the Appellant/accused. 3. After trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the Appellant without there being any evidence available on record. He further submits that all the prosecution witnesses are close relatives of the complainant like Husband and fatherin-law, therefore, their statements can not be believed. He further submits that firstly report has been lodged by the Appellant, therefore, it appears that the report against him is a counter blast and this fact alone makes the prosecution case doubtful. The Counsel further submits that prosecution has not examined the independent witnesses Pairruram and Budhram who were named in the FIR but they were examined by the Appellant as defence witnesses, their evidence ought to have been accepted by the Trial Court after drawing adverse inference against the prosecution. The Counsel further submitted that according to the case of prosecution after the incident, the Appellant admitted the guilt and executed a letter but prosecution has not seized nor submitted the said letter during trial, therefore, entire case of prosecution is doubtful. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the same and supported the impugned judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely. 7. In her Court statement Kamleshwari (PW1), deposed that on 02.07.1999 at about 11:12 AM when she was alone in her house, the Appellant entered in her house, caught hold her hands and kissed her on her cheeks, somehow she separated herself and narrated the incident to her neighbors Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) and Shiv Ratri Lahre (PW3) and at night she narrated the same to her father-in-law later on to her husband, after hearing about the incident her husband suggested her if the incident taken place again then she may lodge a report. This witness further deposed that on second incident i.e. on 05.07.1999 at about 10:30 AM when she was again alone in her house, the Appellant came there and again caught hold her hands and tried to remove her Saree somehow she separated herself and ran away from the spot. This incident was again told by her to her neighbors Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) and Shiv Ratri Lahre (PW3). In her crossexamination, she has admitted that her neighbors Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) and Shiv Ratri Lahre (PW3) are the husband and wife and Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) is the brother of her father-in-law. Meaning thereby both the witnesses are close relatives of the complainant. This witness further deposed that on 02.07.1999, the Appellant had done the work of repairing but the whole work was not done on the same day, therefore, for doing his incomplete work he came again on 05.07.1999. In para 14 of her crossexamination this witness stated that after the incident when she went out the room, she told about the said incident to labourer Perruram and Budhram. In para 15 of her cross-examination this witness stated that when the Appellant caught hold her hands, she shouted and abused the Appellant, Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) and Shiv Ratri Lahre (PW3) didn't come out after hearing her shouting, she herself went to them and narrated the entire story. In para 17 of her cross-examination this witness stated that Perruram and Budhram are the labourer and at the time of incident they were moving in and out of the house. In para 22 of her cross-examination this witness stated that after the incident in front of her father-in-law, Perruram, Budhram and Shivdayal, the Appellant has admitted his guilt and had given a confessional letter however Police has not seized any such confessional letter. Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) has deposed that on 02.07.1999 at about 12 PM, the complainant has narrated to him the alleged incident but, this fact is not mentioned in his case diary statement Ex. D-2. This witness further deposed that with regard to incident dated 05.07.1999, the complainant had come to her house and narrated the incident to her wife Shivratri but in Para-8 of his cross-examination, this witness stated that the story narrated by the complainant was narrated in her house itself, not in his home. D-2. This witness further deposed that with regard to incident dated 05.07.1999, the complainant had come to her house and narrated the incident to her wife Shivratri but in Para-8 of his cross-examination, this witness stated that the story narrated by the complainant was narrated in her house itself, not in his home. In para 14 of his cross-examination this witness admitted that with regard to committed marpeet with the Appellant, the Appellant had filed a private complaint which is pending. Shivratri Bai (PW3) is the wife of Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) has deposed that while crying the complainant had come to her and told her that the Appellant was molesting her. This witness further deposed that at that time her husband Shivdayal Lahre was not in home. The complainant while crying came to her and told her about the incident, this fact was not mentioned in her case diary statement Ex. D-3. In para 5, this witness stated that after the incident, she went to the house of complainant, she saw labourer who were working namely Perruram and Budhram but she didn't talk to them. Vishwas Chandrakar (PW4) is the witness who recorded the FIR on 05.07.1999 vide Ex. P-1. This witness admitted that on the same date i.e. 05.07.1999 at about 16:25, the Appellant had lodged the complaint against the complainant party. Vineeta Khanna (PW5) is the witness who investigated the entire matter. Perruram (DW2), according to the case of prosecution, at the time of alleged incident, Perruram was present outside the house of the complainant. In para 2 of his cross-examination this witness stated that Shivprasad Lahre and his family members had committed marpeet with the Appellant by saying that he has not doing his work properly. In para 3 of his cross-examination this witness stated that the Appellant has not molested the complainant in front of him. Trilok Singh Thakur (DW4) also deposed that in front of him, Shivprasad Lahre and his family members had committed marpeet with the Appellant. 8. In para 3 of his cross-examination this witness stated that the Appellant has not molested the complainant in front of him. Trilok Singh Thakur (DW4) also deposed that in front of him, Shivprasad Lahre and his family members had committed marpeet with the Appellant. 8. On minute examination of above evidence, it makes clear that according to the prosecution on 02.07.1999 & 05.07.1999, the Appellant entered in the house of complainant Kamleshwari and caught hold her hands, kissed her on her cheeks and tried to outrage her modesty but, the statement of the complainant in this regard is suspicious, because firstly when the incident occurred on 02.07.1999 then why she permitted the Appellant to entered in her home on 05.07.1999 in spite of that she was alone in her home and secondly neither the report was lodged with regard to incident dated 02.07.1999 nor nobody witnessed the said incident. According to the case of prosecution incident dated 02.07.1999 & 05.07.1999, the complainant had narrated the incident to Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) and Shivratri Lahre (PW3). Shivdayal Lahre (PW2) stated that the complainant had told him about the incident dated 02.07.1999 but this fact was not mentioned in his case diary statement Ex.D-1. According to Shivdayal Lahre (PW2), the complainant had told her about the incident dated 05.07.1999, in her house but, as stated by Kamleshwari (PW1) and Shivratri (PW3), the complainant had narrated the incident in the house of Shivdayal Lahre (PW2). Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that there are material contradiction occurred in the statement of both witnesses. As stated by Kamleshwari (PW1) and Shivratri (PW3), at the time of incident labourer Perruram and Budhram were doing their job, but the prosecution has not examined Perruram and Budhram. However, Perruram was examined as (DW2) who has not supported the alleged incident. Complainant Kamleshwari Bai (PW1) has also stated that on the date of incident Perruram and Budhram was moving in and out of the house, in these circumstances it is not natural that the Appellant or any other person can commit this alleged act, therefore, the Appellant is entitled to get benefit doubt. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 10. The judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted from the charges framed against him. 11. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 10. The judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted from the charges framed against him. 11. Records of the court below along with the copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for necessary compliance and action.