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