HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 192 of 2010
Judgement reserved on 4-9-2018
Judgement delivered on 29-10-2018
• Sita Ram S/o Loknath aged about 23 years, R/o. Village Chichiya
Police Station Deobhog, District Raipur (CG)
• State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police
Station, Debhog, District Raipur (CG).
For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer
(SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma)
1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 24-2-2010 passed by Special Judge
(Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )Act,
1989 (for short, “the Act, 1989”), Raipur, District Raipur in Special Case
No. 72/2008, wherein the said Court convicted the accused/appellant
under Sections 341, 354 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act,
1989 and sentenced him to undergo SI for one month, RI for six
months and RI for six months and fine of Rs.200/- with default
2) As per prosecution case, on 30-3-2008 at about 6.00 pm,
prosecutrix is a student of Class 10 to whom the accused teased about
her caste and when she went to Shiv temple with her friend namely
Vishakha for the purpose of worship, the appellant reached near
canal and while she was returning from the said temple, appellant
caught hold her and dragged her towards canal. Thereafter she
shouted and her friend ran away from the place of incident. The
matter was reported and investigated. After completion of trial, the
trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as
3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
I) Prosecutrix has not submitted written report
before the Police Station and written report was
submitted by her maternal uncle;
ii) The trial Court has discarded the statement of
Vishakha PW/3 who was single eye-witness as
well as important witness.
Iii) As per version of prosecutrix she cut the hand of
the accused by teeth, but the Doctor has not
found any injury on the body of the accused.
iv) Present is a case of consent and story of crime
developed later on, therefore, finding of the trial
court is liable to be reversed.
4) Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned
judgment has submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is strictly
in accordance with the law and well founded and there is no illegality
or infirmity in it warranting any interference by this Court invoking the
jurisdiction of appeal.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the court below in which impugned judgment has been
6) In the present case prosecutrix is PW/1. Date of incident is 30-3-
2008 and the report was lodged on the same day at Police Station
Deobhog as per Ex.P/12. Place of incident is village Chichiya which is
distance of 12 kms from Police Station Deobhog. Name of the
appellant is mentioned in FIR as culprit and his act is also mentioned.
7) To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as
eight witnesses. To nullify the charge, defence side examined one
defence witness namely Kaleshwar (DW/1).
8) As per version of prosecutrix, on the date of incident she went to
Shiv temple for worship with her friend Vishakha and while she was
returning from the said temple, appellant came there from behind,
caught hold her and dragged her towards canal. She tried to release
herself from the clutches of the appellant and make teeth bite on his
hand and cried. Thereafter, her father came there and the appellant fled
away from the spot. This witness has been subjected to searching cross
examination, but nothing could be elicited in favour of defence. Version
of prosecution is supported by version of PW/2 Narhari who is father of
the prosecutrix. Again her version is supported by the statement of
Tulsi Bai (PW/5). All the witnesses have been subjected to incisive
cross examination, but they are unshaken. Version of all these
witnesses is supported by FIR which is lodged on the date of incident in
which act of the appellant is clearly mentioned.
9) DW/1 Kaleshwar though deposed that on hearing the cries of
the prosecutrix, appellant reached there, but this witness has not
answered the question that at whose instance he came to quote for
deposition. The trial Court has noted demeanour of this witness and
opined that witness has made false statement. This court has no reason
to see the witness, therefore, demeanour recorded by the trial Court
cannot be substituted by some other way.
10) Now, the point for consideration is whether the act of the
accused/appellant falls within the mischief under Section 354 of the
As per section 354 of the IPC- Whoever
assaults or uses criminal force to any woman,
intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished.
The essential ingredients of offence under
Section 354, IPC are;-
(a) That the assault must be on a woman.
(b) That the accused must have used criminal
force on her.
(c) That the criminal force must have been used
on the woman intending thereby to outrage her
10) Criminal force is defined under Section 350 of IPC.
“Section 350 of the IPC read as under:- Whoever
intentionally uses force to any person, without that
person’s consent, in order to the committing of any
offence, or intending by the use of such force to
cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of
such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance
to the person to whom the force is used, is said to
use criminal force to that other”.
11) In State of Punjab v Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63) a question
arose whether a minor female could be said to be possessed of
modesty which could be outraged. In answering the above question it
has been held by Their lordships that the essence of a woman’s
modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the
modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the test for
ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the
action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is
capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Same view
was reiterated in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal
Singh Gill Anr. 1995(6) SCC 194.
12) In the present case, the prosecutrix is firm in reporting the matter
to the people of locality and firm in lodging the FIR in Police Station
on the same day and looking to the statements of number of
witnesses cited by the prosecution, it is clear that criminal force is
used by the appellant against the prosecutrix and act of the appellant
amounts to outrage her modesty.
13) Looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is
established that the accused/appellant knowingly outraged the
modesty of the prosecutrix by using criminal force upon her and the
same is offence under Section 354 of the IPC for which the trial Court
convicted the accused/appellant which is not liable to be interfered
with by this Court and the conviction of the appellant is hereby
affirmed. Again, the appellant caught the prosecutrix when she was
moving towards her home and restraining a person from free
movement is mischief of wrongful restraint which is punishable under
Section 341 of IPC. Conviction of the appellant under Section 341 of
IPC is also hereby affirmed.
14) From the evidence of PW/1 prosecutrix, PW/2 Narhari and PW/3
Vishakha, PW/4 Jaising Sandiyal, PW/5 Tulasi Bai and certificate
(Article 1-C), it is established that the appellant is Gond by caste
which is included in Scheduled Tribe and using criminal force to
outrage of the prosecutrix (member of Schedule Tribe) is also
punishable under Section 3 (1)(xi)of the Act, 1989 as he is not a
member of scheduled tribe/caste for which the trial Court convicted
the appellant as mentioned above and this court has no reason to
record contrary finding. Conviction of the appellant under Section 3
(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989 is also hereby affirmed.
15) Heard on the point of sentence.
The trial Court has awarded minimum sentence for offence
under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989 and less than minimum
sentence cannot be awarded. The trial Court has also directed that all
the sentences shall run concurrently which is not liable to be
interfered with by this Court.
16) Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and
is hereby dismissed. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail
bonds shall stand canceled. The trial Court will prepare supersession
warrant and issue warrant of arrest against the appellant. After his
arrest, he be sent to concerned jail to serve out the remaining part of
the jail sentence. The trial Court shall submit the compliance report
before this court on 24-1-2019.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)