Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.03.26 11:01:21 +0530 2025:CGHC:14144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 674 of 2007 Ramsevak Prajapati S/o Shri Kanhai Prajapati, aged about 50 years, Resident of village Maharajganj, Boditola, Police Station Balrampur, District Surguja (CG) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Balrampur, District Surguja (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal J U D G M E N T ON B O A R D 24.03.2025 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2007 passed by learned Special Sessions Court [constituted under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)] Act, 1989/Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Sarguja, place Ambikapur in Special Case No.11/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 3 (1) (xi) of the SC & 2 ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. 19.12.2004 at about 8:00 a.m., the appellant came to the house of prosecutrix, caught hold of her both breasts from behind and pressed them. When the prosecutrix raised an alarm, her grandson Basant came from outside and the appellant ran away from there. At that time, the husband of prosecutrix had gone to Ramanujganj and on his return, she informed him about the incident and then the matter was reported to the Police. After completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence. 3. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses in support of its case whereas no witness was examined by the defence. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case as there was a dispute between the parties regarding plantation of paddy crop and theft of a cock of the appellant. He submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant knew the caste of the prosecutrix. There was a delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR for which the prosecution has 3 not given any satisfactory explanation. He submits that the trial Court, without appreciating the material available on record, has convicted the appellant for the said offence which is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand,
Decision
submits that the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the judgment impugned. 8. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has confirmed the prosecution case in her court statement according to which at the time of incident her step son Birbal's son Basant had come. But 9 year old Basant (PW-3) has not remained consistent to his statement of having seen the appellant in the house of the prosecutrix (PW-1), rather he has stated in cross-examination that the prosecutrix had told him about the incident in the evening. Thus, the fact that Basant (PW-3) had seen the appellant at the house of prosecutrix is not proved by his statement. 9. It is important to note that the incident is stated to have taken place on 19/12/2004 whereas its report was lodged on 22/12/2004 i.e. 3 days after the incident. The reason given for this delay is that the report was lodged 3 days later when the husband of prosecutrix returned from Ramanujganj. But the husband (PW-4) has stated that he had returned home the very next day. Basant (PW-3) has also said that the husband of the prosecutrix (PW-4) had returned home in the evening of the date of incident. Basant (PW-3) has also stated that his parents were at home on the date of incident. In such a situation, there is no satisfactory explanation as to why 4 the report was not lodged on the date of incident or immediately after it and due to this delay, the statement of the prosecutrix becomes doubtful. 10. The prosecutrix has stated herself to be of Bhuinya (भु(cid:2)इं(cid:4)या(cid:6)) caste and her caste certificate has been seized. That has not been duly proved by examining any witness by the prosecution. The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has denied knowing the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to Bhuinya caste. Thus, it has not been established beyond doubt that the prosecutrix belongs to Bhuinya caste and this fact was known to the appellant. 11. This fact is also important that according to the appellant, he works as a potter. He has built his house on the land of Uday Nath Singh. But the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband (PW-4) have denied having knowing of the fact that the land on which the appellant's house is built belongs to Uday Nath Singh. The husband (PW-4) has accepted the fact that his land and the land of Uday Nath Singh are adjacent to each other. He has also accepted that they had a dispute over the appellant planting paddy on that land. The prosecutrix as well as her husband (PW-4) has also accepted that a few days before the incident, the appellant's cock had gone missing, for which the appellant had blamed her husband (PW-4) and there was a dispute between the two parties over that matter as well. They have also accepted that a Panchayat was held in the village in which other people were also present and after that Panchayat, a report was filed at the police station. The statement of the prosecutrix as well as her husband shows that there has been a dispute between the two parties not only for the cock but also for the land for which a Panchayat was also held. The complainant party has denied knowing the fact that the land on which the appellant has built a house is of Uday Nath Singh, whereas the husband (PW-4) has accepted that the land of Uday 5 Nath Singh is adjacent to his land. In such a situation, the statement of the prosecutrix is not found to be reliable beyond doubt considering the situation of enmity and for not providing satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Hence, the conviction of the appellant is not found to be sustainable as it is not based on sufficient and reliable evidence. 12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2007 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charges. 13. Thus, the appeal is allowed. 14. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Khatai Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge