1

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2010
1. Chaman Lal @ Shiv Kumar S/o Hinsaram, aged about 22
Years,
2. Chandresh Kumar S/o Hinsaram Patel, Aged about 30 years,
3. Hinsaram Patel S/o Sahasram, Aged about 55 years,
All R/o Vill. Kasniya Police Station Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG)
—- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Katghora, Distt.
Korbra (CG)
—- Respondent
——————————————————————————————-

For the appellants : Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh Patel,
Advocate
For the respondent/State : Shri Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer

——————————————————————————————-

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
19.9.2018.

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2010 passed by

Special Session Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 in Special

Session Case No.29/2009, wherein the said Court convicted

appellant Chaman Lal @ Shiv Kumar for commission of offence

under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of

Rs.500/- and convicted all the appellants under Section 323 read

with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for three

months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 05.3.2009 at about 7.00 am

prosecutrix (PW-1) had gone to river for fetching water. On seeing
2

her alone appellant Chamanlal came there and pulled her sari with

intend to outrage her modesty. When the husband of the prosecutrix

namely Barjrang Lal intervened into the matter, all the appellants

caused simple injury to him. The matter was reported and

investigated and after the trial the trial Court convicted and

sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under:

(i) There is material contradiction in the statements of the

prosecutrix and her husband Bajrang Lal and the case of the

prosecution is cooked up on account of enmity.

(ii) Simple injuries found on the body of Bajrang Lal might

be caused due to fall on hard surface and therefore, the same is not

corroborative piece of evidence.

(iii) There is no seizure of articles to prove the commission

of offence and the prosecution has failed to establish the charges.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that

the finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on proper marshaling

of evidence which is not liable to be interfered with.

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

material available on record.

6. Date of incident is 05.3.2009 and the report was lodged on the

same day at Police Station Katghora. All the appellants have been

named in the FIR and as per the version of the prosecutrix and

supportive evidence of Barjrang Lal (PW-2), Lalji shukla (PW-4), it is

established that appellant Chaman Lal tried to pull the sari of the

prosecutrix in order to outrage her modesty. The advance of said

appellant shows that he is willing to outrage the modesty of the
3

prosecutrix and for that he used criminal force against her. All the

witnesses have been subjected to searching cross-examination but

nothing could be elicited in favour of the defence.

7. From the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and Bajrang Lal

(PW-2), it is established that all the appellants have assaulted

Bajrang Lal by club. Version of this witness is supported by medical

expert Dr. SD Dahire (PW-3), who examined Bajrang Lal and noticed

following injuries on his body.

(1) One incised wound of 1 x ¼” on left hand in between

thumb and 2nd finger.

(2) Bruise of 3 x 1″ on the left side forearm at upper part of

peripheral lateral aspect

(3) Swelling on the top of the finger of right hand and swelling

on the back side of the hand.

(4) swelling on the left side scapular region

(5) swelling on left ankle.

8. As per the opinion of the medical expert all the injuries were

caused by hard and blunt object and the injuries were sustained

within 24 hours of examination. Though this witness has deposed in

his cross-examination that the injuries might be caused by fall on

hard surface but there is no evidence that the injuries on the body of

Barjrang Lal was caused due to fall on hard surface. From the

evidence it is established that the injuries were caused by all the

three appellants. Case of none of the appellants falls under any

exception mentioned in the Indian Penal Code and that they knew

that their assault will cause pain in the body of Bajrang Lal. Looking

to the entire evidence, it is established that all the appellants have
4

voluntarily caused simple injury on the body of Bajrang which is an

offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for which the trial Court

convicted the appellants. Outraging the modesty of a woman and

using criminal force for that purpose is the offence under Section 354

IPC for which the trial Court convicted appellant Chaman Lal and this

Court has no reason to substitute a contrary finding . Accordingly,

conviction of the appellants for the said offence is hereby affirmed.

9. Heard on sentence part.

Offence was committed on 05.3.2009 i.e. about nine years

back. At that time there was no minimum punishment for

commission of offence under Section 354 IPC. Even corporeal

punishment was not required. For offence under Section 323 IPC

corporal punishment is not required. Looking to the legal aspects

of the matter corporal sentences of both the offences imposed on

the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by

them. Fine sentence imposed by the trial Court shall remain

intact.

10. With this modification, the appeal is allowed in part.

SD/-

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
Bini