HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
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)
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Utai, District Durg
For Appellant : Shri Aditya Chopra, Advocate on behalf
of Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate
For State/ Respondent : Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAM PRASANNA SHARMA
JUDGMENT ON BOARD
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)