1 2025:CGHC:16042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 927 of 2007 Khem Lal S/o Shri Ramji Varma, aged about 20 years, R/o Village- Piprahi, Thana- Suhela, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S.- Suhela, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, PL _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 04.04.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2007 passed by learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 11/2007, whereby the appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 1989 (henceforth ‘ the Act of 1989’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to under additional R.I. for 01 month. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.05.2006 at around 4:00 pm, the complainant/victim (PW-01) went with Munnibai (PW-2) to the boring (hand pump) for fetching the water, when she was on her way after fetching water, the present appellant with an intent to outrage her modesty and to humiliate her, caught hold of her hand and dragged her. At the same time, she resisted and came out of his clutches, on alarm of help being raised, her father came to spot and on seeing father of the complainant/victim, the appellant fled from the spot. Thereafter, she narrated the whole incident to her father and family members. She lodged the FIR after two days of the incident at Police Station- Suhela vide Ex. P/1. During investigation, spot map was prepared, caste certificate (A-1) was seized as per seizure memo vide Ex. P/3 and appellant was arrested. The prosecution after conducting the investigation, filed charge-sheet before the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989., Raipur (C.G.) and the accused person was put to trial for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for brevity SC & ST Act). 3. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and 3 false implication in this case. However, in his defence the appellant examined one witness. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. Learned Trial Court erred grievously in not marshalling the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses to its true perspective manner, because there are several omissions and contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses and it is clear on the part of the complainant/victim (PW-1) that there was delay of two days in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation was given by the prosecution in this regard, It is also evident from statement of witnesses that there is subsisting enmity between the complainant/victim and appellant, so, false story has been concocted by the complainant’s party. Learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW-1 (complainant/victim), PW-2 (Munnibai), PW-3 (Milanbai) and PW-4 (Lakhanlal) all are interested witnesses and their testimonies are full of contradictions, omissions, unreliable, untrustworthy and and are contrary to each other. He further submits that the Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution. It is also clear that offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST Act is not made out, however complainant/victim had already attained majority at the time of incident and appellant is an innocent 4 and has been falsely implicated in the alleged commission of offence. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the said offence, considering the fact that the incident took place around 19 years ago, the appellant is now middle aged person and he has no criminal antecedents, he has already remained in jail for more than 01 months, he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He places reliance on the decision of this Court’s order dated 22.06.2020 passed in CRA No. 953/2005 in the matter of Kedarram vs. State of Chhattisgarh. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the order impugned does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 5 available on record. 8. It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellant under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is also evident from record of learned trial Court that the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. 9. Complainant/victim (PW-1) specifically and categorically stated that on the date of incident, she went with Munnibai (PW-2) to the boring (hand pump) for fetching the water, when she was on her way after fetching water, the present appellant with an intent to outrage her modesty and to humiliate her, caught hold of her hand and dragged her. At the same time, she resisted and came out of his clutches, on alarm of help being raised, her father came to spot and on seeing father of the complainant/victim, the appellant fled from the spot. Thereafter, she narrated the whole incident to her father and family members and lodged the FIR at Police Station- Suhela vide Ex. P/1, she admitted her signature on A to A part. However, in her cross-examination, she remained firm in her statement. 10. Munni Bai (PW-2), Milan Bai (PW-3), Lakhanlal (PW-4) and Shantilal (PW-5) have supported the statement of the complainant (PW-1) in their depositions. So, it is clear that on the date of incident i.e., 30.05.2006, with an intent to outrage her modesty, the appellant had 6 caught hold hand of the complainant and stated that he loves her. 11. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner, in which the offence took place and looking to the statement of the complainant/victim (PW-1) and other witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case under Section 354 of IPC against the appellant. 12. So far as the offence alleged under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, the prosecution has filed caste certificate of the complainant as Ex.A/1, but the complainant/victim (PW-1) and other witnesses have not made any statements that on the basis of caste of the complainant/victim, she was subjected to the harassment by the appellant, therefore, the main ingredients of the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not proved by the prosecution. There is no such evidence adduced by the complainant/victim(PW-1) that she was humiliated and subjected to harassment on her caste. However, she further stated this fact that the appellant confessed his love to her. 13. It has been held by this Court in the matter of Keddram Janghel (supra) in paras 19 & 20 as under:- 19. In the matter of Dabloo alias Shahjad vs State of M.P., 2007 (1) M.P.L.J. Page 250, the High Court of M.P. held as under:- "Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is an aggravated offence under Section 354, Indian Penal Code. There was no evidence to show that the appellant used criminal force against the prosecutrix to degenerate her modesty only 7 because she belonged to a particular caste or community, whereby there was no such circumstances to suggest that her modesty Was intended or tried to degenerate simply because she belonged to a particular community. Thus, the ingredients under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act were not proved by the prosecution. But, from the evidence of prosecutrix and other witnesses it is clear that ample evidence was produced against the appellant to hold him guilty under Section 354, Indian Penal code, although on the date of incident the appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix and molested her with the knowledge that he will by doing such act is the intention or to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court under Section 354, Indian Penal Code is maintained but conviction under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside." 20. In the matter of Tarachand vs. State of M.P. (Now C.G.) reported in 2015 (3) C.G.L.J. 327, this Court held as under:- "The Prosecution proved this fact that the appellant tried to outrage modesty of the complainant (PW-1) by holding her hands which was protested and thereafter a call for help was made by the complainant This act of the appellant is an offence defined under Section 354 of the IPC for which the trial court also framed charge for the same- To part with, in view of this Court, the prosecution not proved its case against the appellant under Section 451 of the IPC and S. 3(i) (xi) of the Act, 1989, on the other hand, the prosecution proved its case under Section 354 of the IPC against the appellant.” 14. In the light of above judgment, in this case also, the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the complainant/victim (PW-1) was molested by the appellant because of her caste, so essential ingredients under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not proved, therefore the conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is liable to be and is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed thereunder, but he is held guilty for the offence under Section 8 354 of IPC. 15. As regards the sentence under Section 354 of IPC, as per Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 which came into force with effect from 03.02.2013, the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 354 of IPC is one year and the maximum is 5 year with fine as well. However, the present incident took place in the year 2006 i.e., prior to the amendment and at that time the aforesaid offence was punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both. In the present case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006 and nearly 19 years have rolled by since then, this appeal is pending since 2007. The appellant is now middle aged person, he has no criminal antecedents and he did not misuse the liberty, so granted to him, while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 16. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. While acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, he is held guilty under Section 354 of IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. The appellant be set free, if not required in any other cases. 17. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of 9 provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 18. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL