HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2010
1. Chaman Lal @ Shiv Kumar S/o Hinsaram, aged about 22
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)
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Katghora, Distt.
For the appellants : Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh Patel,
For the respondent/State : Shri Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
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
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
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
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
10. With this modification, the appeal is allowed in part.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)