SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anand Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 October, 2018




Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2010
Anand Ram s/o Bisahu Ram Chandan, aged about 37 years,
Grocery Shopkeeper, R/o Village Kanakot, Chowki
Machandur, PS Utai, District Durg (CG)
—- Appellant
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Utai, District Durg
—- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Aditya Chopra, Advocate on behalf
of Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate

For State/ Respondent : Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer


1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 27.1.2010,

passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Durg, District Durg

(CG) in Special Case No. 40/2009, whereby the appellant has been

convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short the IPC) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year.

2. As per the case of prosecution, on 3.8.2009 at about 9.30 am,

the appellant caught hold the prosecutrix and tried to outrage her

modesty. The matter was reported and investigated and after

completion of trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the

appellant as aforementioned.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the


4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under :

(i) There is no reliable evidence warranting conviction of the

appellant and the trial Court has overlooked the material

contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution


(ii) The prosecutrix has not made any hue and cry at the time of

incident and did not inform about the incident to any responsible

person and therefore, her version is not sustainable.

(iii) The trial Court has not considered the evidence of defence

witnesses that due to outstanding amount, the prosecutrix has

falsely implicated the present applicant, therefore, finding of the trial

Court is liable to be reversed.

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

the judgment submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court is

based on proper marshalling of evidence and same is not liable to

be interfered with.


6. To substantiate the charge prosecution has examined as

many as 6 witnesses.

7. The case of the prosecution is based on statement of the

prosecutrix who is examined as PW1. As per her version, on the

date of incident, she was returning from School while she had gone

to leave her child to the Classroom, at that time, the appellant came

from behind and caught her left hand and asked her to accompany

him. She further deposed that she denied accompanying the

appellant, at the same time her brother in law Mukesh came there

on hearing her cries and thereafter the appellant left the place.

Version of this witness is supported by the version of F.I.R. which is

lodged on next day of the incident in which name of the appellant is

mentioned as culprit. The witness is firm on her statement right

from the day of investigation and her earlier version recorded by the

Investigating Officer is also corroborating her version as stated

before the Court.

8. Smt. Jubeda Bai (PW2) has supported the version of the

prosecutrix to whom she informed about the incident and after that

report was lodged against the appellant. All the witnesses have

been subjected to searching cross-examination but nothing could be

elicited in favour of the defence.

9. The defence witness, Jailuram (DW1) deposed that there was

some transaction between the appellant and the prosecutrix and on

that account the applicant has been falsely implicated. Version of

this witness is hardly tenable because in conservative society

woman would not be used as pawn to wreck vengeance.

10. Looking to the overall evidence, the trial Court opined that the

appellant used criminal force and tried to outrage the modesty of the

prosecutrix. Mischief of the appellant falls within Section 354 I.P.C.

for which the trial Court has convicted the appellant and the same is

hereby affirmed and this Court has no reason to record a contrary


11. Heard on the point of sentence:

The offence was committed on 3.8.2009 and at that time,

corporeal punishment was not compulsory for offence under Section

354 IPC. The appellant has suffered jail term from 6.8.2009 to

11.8.2009 i.e. for 6 days. The corporeal punishment is reduced to

the period already undergone by him. The appellant is reported to

be on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months in

view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

12. With these modifications, the appeal is partly allowed.


(Ram Prasanna Sharma)


Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation