Chamra@Lakhiram vs State Of C.G on 2 November, 2017

1

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.709 of 2001
Chamra alias Lakhiram S/o. Neelkanth, age 24 years, R/o. Village
Khamargaon Police Station Nagarnar District Bastar (CG)
—- Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh
—Respondent

For Appellants : Shri RN Jha, Advocate
For respondent/State : Shri Ankit Singhal, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Order On Board
02.11.2017

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 09.9.2001 passed by Special Judge

under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), Bastar at Jagdalpur in

Session Case No.278/2000 wherein the trial Court convicted the

appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and sentenced him to

undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of

Rs.1500/- and for offence under Section 354 IPC sentenced him

to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/- and

under Section 323 IPC sentenced him to undergo RI for six

months with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, prosecutrix is Bhatra by caste

and is a member of Scheduled Tribe while accused is not a

member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he is Mahra
2

by caste. Prosecutrix had gone to the house of her brother on the

date of incident, i.e. 22.9.99 and when she was returning around

6.30 pm with one Sukhmati, accused/appellant met her on road,

caught hold her and when she resisted, the accused/appellant

assaulted her by stick.

3. The matter was reported to Tribal Welfare Department,

Police Station Jagdalpur and the same was registered as Ex-P/1.

The injured was sent to medical examination, certain articles were

seized, statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC

and recorded and charge sheet was filed against the appellant.

The trial Court framed charges under Sections as mentioned

above in which the appellant plead innocent thereafter the trial

was conducted, after examination of the prosecution witnesses

statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the

CrPC was recorded. After hearing the parties, the trial Court

convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under :-

1) that there is no certificate regarding caste of the prosecutrix

and therefore, case under Special Act is not made out.

2) Statements of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory

and the same is not sufficient to establish the guilt against the

appellant.

3) that the accused/appellant was in custody during trial from

18.11.99 to 03.12.99 and again from 04.5.2001 to 08.5.2001. He
3

has already paid the fine imposed by the trial Court and therefore,

he may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits

that the judgment of the trial Court is strictly in accordance with

law and the same is not liable to be interferred with invoking the

jurisdiction of the appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

7. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has deposed that on the date of incident

she had gone to the house of her brother and when she was

returning at about 6.30 pm, the accused/appellant met her on the

way, caught hold her hands and when she resisted, the accused

assaulted her by stick. Version of this witness is supported by

Sukmati (PW-2) and Balram (PW-3) and again it is supported by

the evidence of Dr. Vijay Thakur (PW-4) who noticed the injury on

the head of the prosecutrix on her examination and the same

was caused by hard and blunt object.

8. The accused/appellant has not explained as to why he

caught hold the hands of the prosecutrix who is a lady, hence, it

can be inferred that such criminal force was used with intention to

outrage her modesty or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby

outrage her modesty. The act of the accused appellant is a

criminal act punishable under Section 354 of the IPC . Again he

has assaulted the prosecutrix and she sustained simple injury for

which injury, case of the appellant does not fall under any of the
4

exception of the IPC and he caused the same with a knowledge

that thereby the prosecutrix will suffer pain. The act of the

accused appellant is voluntary in nature and he is guilty for

causing voluntary simple injury to the proseucutrix and the act of

the accused falls under section 323 of the IPC for which the trial

Court convicted him under Sections 354 and 323 IPC and the

same is not liable to be inferferred with and the same is hereby

affirmed.

9. So far as the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is

concerned, there is nothing on record that the prosecutrix belongs

to Scheduled Tribe. No one was examined before the trial court

to prove her caste. The incident happened only because she was

a woman and not because she was a woman of certain special

category as mentioned in the Special category. From the

evidence, charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not

substantiated and conviction of the appellant for the said offence

is not sustainable, hence, he is acquitted of the charges under

Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act.

10. The accused appellant remained in custody for 21 days

during trial and the incident is of the year of 1999. After the lapse

of more than 18 years and considering other circumstances, the

period already undergone would be sufficient for the offence

committed by the appellant. The appellant is sentenced for the

period already undergone by him, while the fine imposed by the
5

trial Court will remain intact. With this modification of the

sentence, the appeal stand dismissed.

Sd/-

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
Bini

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *