1

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2009

Satyanarayan S/o. Motiram Chandra, aged about 22 years,
R/o. Ghoghri, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir-
Champa (CG)
—- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Janjgir-
Champa District Jangir-Champa (CG)
—- Respondent
—————————————————————————————-

For the Appellant : Shri Triveni Shankar Sahu, Advocate
For the Respondent/State :Shri Aman Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer

—————————————————————————————-

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Judgment On Board
23.01.2020

1. The appeal is preferred against judgment dated 13.02.2009

passed by Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 (for short

‘the Act 1989’), Janjgir Champa (CG) in Special Session Case

No.180/2008 wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for

the commission of offence under Section 454 and 354 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act

1989 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01

year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-; RI for 01 year and to pay fine of

Rs.1000/- and RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-

respectively with default stipulation.

2. As per the version of the prosecution, on 26.3.2006 at about

5.00 PM when prosecutrix’s parents went outside of their house
2

for some work, she was alone in the house and at that time, the

appellant came there, asked the prosecutrix regarding

whereabout of her parents and when he came to know that her

parents are not in the house, he caught hold her and tried to

outrage her modesty. On raising the alarm by her, maternal grand

father of the prosecutrix, who accidentally came there, rushed to

the spot and on seeing him, the appellant ran away from the spot.

The matter was reported, investigated and the appellant was

charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:

(i) The story put forth by the prosecutrix itself create

doubt about the prosecution case and there is no evidence to

establish the charges under Section 454 IPC. There is nothing on

record to substantiate the charge on the basis of the caste.

(ii) The trial Court has not evaluated the evidence

properly, therefore, finding of the trial Court is liable to be set

aside.

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

the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial

Court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence and the

same is not liable to be interfered with while invoking the

jurisdiction of the appeal.

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

the judgment impugned.

3

6. From the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), Heeralal (PW-

3) and Uthara Kumar (PW-4), it is established that the appellant

entered into the house of the prosecutrix, caught hold her hands

and made her lie down on the floor. Version of these witnesses is

unrebutted during cross-examination and there is nothing on

record to say that these witnesses have falsely roped the

appellant in the present case. Evidence of the prosecutrix and

other witnesses inspire confidence, therefore, it cannot be said

that there is material contradictions which affect the root of the

prosecution case. Minor contradictions which do not go to the

root of the case are insignificant and the same is not sufficient to

discard the version of these witnesses. In view of the above,

arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding

commission of offence under Sections 454 and 354 IPC Is not

sustainable. Conviction of the appellant for these two offences

are not liable to be interfered with and the same is hereby

affirmed.

7. There is nothing on record to prove that anything is

committed on the basis of caste. The offence is committed

because the prosecutrix is opposite sex and the offence is

committed in advancement of sexual overtures, therefore, it

cannot be said that the offence is committed on the basis of the

caste and thereby charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act 1989 is

not established. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted of the said
4

charges and his conviction and sentence for the above said

offence is hereby set aside.

8. For the offence under Section 354 IPC, jail sentence was

not compulsory on the date of incident. The appellant suffered jail

term of seven days during investigation. In view of this fact, this

Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the jail

sentence awarded to the appellant for the commission of offence

under Sections 454 and 354 IPC is reduced to the period already

undergone by him. However, fine amount is increased for offence

under Section 354 IPC and he is fined to pay Rs.2,000/-. In all the

appellant has to pay fine of Rs.3000/- as fine. The appellant has

already deposited Rs. 3,000/- as fine for the offences for which he

was convicted by the trial Court , then he is not required to deposit

any further sum.

9. With these modifications, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
Bini