High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.24 16:40:18 +0530 2025:CGHC:2278 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.A. No. 414 of 2004 Pahalwaan Khan, S/o Shri Ajit Khan Musalman, aged about 45 Years, R/o Charkhura, Police Station Out Post- Pandaparai, Kunda,, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh State of Chhattisgarh Versus ------ Appellant ---- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Sashibhusan Tiwari, Advocate. Shri Aman Tamboli, P.L. . Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgement on Board 14/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. In compliance of the order dated 17/12/2024, the appellant is present before this Court and he is identied by Shri Sashibhusan Tiwari, Advocate. His presence is marked. 3. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 4. The challenge in this appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) is to the judgment dated 24/04/2004 passed by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Case No. 14/2004 acquitting the accused under section 3 (i)(x) and 3 (i) (xi) of the -2- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (in short “Special Act”) and 506 IPC but convicting him under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentencing to undergo R.I. for two years. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25/12/2003, when the complainant / victim (PW-1) had gone to her field along with Anuradha to keep watch on the gram crops, the appellant came there, held her hand and dragged her to the sugarcane field. By pressing her breasts, he asked her for sexual favour, threw her on the ground and when she raised an alarm, he threatened her of dire consequences. He thus outraged her modesty and committed the aforesaid offence. Incident was reported to the Police Station Kabirdham where FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 of the I.P.C. 3(i) (xi) of the Special Act and investigation was set on motion. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/2, the Victim was medically examined, Seizure of the Bangles was made vide Ex.P/3, and Caste certificate of the complainant was recovered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for an offence punishable under section 354, 506 Part of the I.P.C 3(i) (xi) of the Special Act followed by framing of charge under the same section. 6. Prosecution examined 04 witnesses and exhibited as many as 04 documents. Statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity as the father of the victim had lost in the Election of Sarpanch. 7. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of charge under section 506 IPC and 3(i) (x), 3(i) (xi) of Special Act, but convicted and sentenced him U/s. 354 IPC as stated above. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the trial court is bad in law and without proper appreciation of evidence available on record. He submits that the statement of Anuradha (PW-4) cannot be relied upon because -3- she is a child witness and her testimony does not inspire confidence. He further submit that as learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellant of another section IPC and that of Special Act on the same set of evidence, he deserve acquittal of the charge in the case in hand also. Alternatively, he submits that since the incident is of the year 2003 and the appellant was granted bail, that he did not misuse the liberty granted to him, that presently he is aged about 73 years, therefore the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned Counsel for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the prosecution has duly proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the statement of the victim inspires full confidence of the Court which is corroborated by the statement of Anuradha (PW-4) and therefore, the conviction under section 354 IPC is well founded and does not require any interference in this appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11. From the perusal of evidence of the victim PW-1, it is apparent that on the date of incident when she had gone to the field to keep watch on the gram crop, the accused/appellant came there, caught hold of her hand and asked for sexual favour. She has further stated that when she raised an alarm, she was threatened by him of dire consequences. Her version is also corroborated by Anuradha (PW-4) – the cousin of the prosecutrix who had rushed to the spot after hearing the cry of the victim and saw the accused/appellant walking away. Both these witnesses have categorically denied that as the appellant did not permit her to carry sugarcane from his field, he was implicated in a false case. Secondly, prompt named report lodged by the victim also rules out the possibility of a false case being foisted against the accused/appellant. This Court also does not find any force in the argument of counsel for the appellant that as the -4- appellant had won the Election of Panch whereas father of the victim had lost the same and therefore, nurturing a vengeance for that the accused/appellant has been implicated in a false case, it is because no father would put his daughter to such an ignominy over such a trivial matter. Similarly PW-2 and PW-3 who are the parents of the victim have also corroborated the incident as was narrated to them by the victim after getting back home after the incident. Thus the evidence amply speaks about the involvement of the accused in the offence stated above and being so, the view taken by the Court below cannot be said to be at fault. Learned court below has arrived at such a conclusion after due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses in its proper prospective. 12. In foresaid view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Court below as far as conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC is concerned, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Being this, the same is maintained. 13. Now as regards sentence, keeping in mind the incident is quite old having taken place in the year 2003 and by now the accused/appellant has reached an advance age of 73 years, that no criminal antecedents against him have been pointed out by the State counsel, that he has already served for about 35 days in the jail, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of Justice would be met if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone, of course, by imposing a fine Rs.3000/- to be deposited by him within a period of 90 days from today before the concerned trial court. 14. Thus, with observations made above, the appeal is partly allowed. Failure in deposit of the fine shall make the accused/appellant undergo R.I. for 07 days. On such deposit being made, an amount of Rs.1000/- shall be paid to the victim (PW-1) as compensation in terms of section 395 BNSS. 15. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of the provision of Section 481 of BNSS. -5- 16. The record be sent back to the trial Court along with a copy of this order for compliance. -Sd/-d/-- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish