Prosecution v. Manglu Ram Dewangan S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.55 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station AJK Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Prosecution versus Manglu Ram Dewangan S/o Late Keshwar Dewangan Aged About 51 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Runiyadiha, Chowki Karanji, Police Station Vishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/Accused For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate None, though served Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 09.06.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015), (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989”), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG) in Special Case No.27/2021, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 454, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w) of the Act, 1989. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2021 at about 2 13.00 hours, when the prosecutrix, who belongs to a member of Scheduled Castes Community, was alone in her house with her daughter, the respondent-accused came in intoxicated condition and knocked the door of her house and when she opened the door, he asked from her daughter that where is her father, it was then replied that her father went to Surajpur. It is alleged further that upon knowing the alleged fact, he forcefully entered into the house of the prosecutrix and tried to outrage her modesty knowing fully that she is a member of Scheduled Castes community and alleged further that when she shouted and informed her aunt about the alleged incident, the respondent has fled away from the spot. 3. An FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered by the Police Station-Vishrampur on the basis of the aforesaid written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by the prosecutrix and during the course of investigation, the temporary caste certificate was seized from her on 03.07.2021 and after recording the statements of the prosecutrix and other members of her family, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of Special Judge, Surajpur against the respondent in connection with Crime No.53/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354(A) of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act, 1989 and based upon the materials, he was charged under Sections 454 and 354 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(w) of the Act, 1989 and, the charges so framed were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, 3 held that there is material disparity in the statements of the prosecutrix and therefore, it cannot be said that on the fateful day, the respondent has entered into the house of the prosecutrix in order to outrage her modesty knowing fully that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the offence mentioned herein-above and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent as such. 7. No one appears on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State and perused the entire record carefully. 9. Before proceeding with the matter, it is to be noted that in a case of an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence would get re-enforced, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Atley v. State of U.P.” reported in AIR 1955 SC 807 and, if two views are possible from the evidence on record, then the Appellate Court must be slow in interfering with the appeal preferred against the order of acquittal, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of 4 “Sambasivan v. State of Kerala” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 412 and, what would be the approach while dealing with the acquittal appeal was laid down by the Supreme Court, in the matter of “Ramesh Babulal Doshi” (supra), wherein, it has been held at paragraph 7 as under:- “7. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the abovequoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order to acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then-and then only-reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions…………….. ” 10. While keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above referred matters, it is necessary to examine the facts and the evidence led by the prosecution in order to ascertain as to whether the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, are perverse or would deserve to be upheld. 11. From perusal of the record, it appears that an undated written report 5 (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix, alleging, inter alia, that on 17.02.2021 at about 13.00 hours, when she was alone at her home, the respondent came in intoxicated condition and knocked her door and enquired about her husband and when he came to know that her husband is not at home, he forcefully bite her cheeks in order to outrage her modesty. It appears further that when she shouted, he came out from her house and thereafter, she informed regarding the alleged incident to her aunt, namely, Rameshwari. It, thus, appears that the alleged incident was occurred on 17.02.2021, but the report was, however, lodged on the next day i.e. on 18.02.2021 at 16.25 hours, wherein it has been alleged that on account of fear of public disgrace, the same was lodged as such. However, when she was examined before the Court, it was stated by her that after consulting with her family members, the alleged report (Ex.P-1) was lodged and thus, the delay in lodging the report was not explained by the prosecutrix in a proper manner, though the concerned Police Station was just 5 to 6 kilometers away from her house. 12. It appears further from her (PW-1) statement that when the respondent has entered into her house and tried to outrage her modesty, she anyhow saved herself, owing to which, her bangles were broken down. However, the said fact was neither disclosed by her in her said written report (Ex.P-1), nor the alleged bangles were recovered from the spot. Besides, according to her testimony, the alleged incident was informed by her aunt telephonically to her husband, however, the said fact was not found to be corroborated by the testimony of her aunt (PW-4). Further, it reveals from her (PW-1) testimony, particularly at para-6, that no caste certificate was recovered from her by the concerned Police 6 Authorities. There is, thus, gross disparity in her statements. 13. It is to be seen further that on account of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. J. B. Singh (PW-3) on 18.02.2021, however, in his report (Ex.P-5), no injury as such was found on her body. The evidence of the prosecutrix was, thus, even not found to be supported by the evidence of Dr. J. B. Singh (PW-3), nor by any of the circumstantial evidence, observed herein-above. In view thereof and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it is difficult to hold that on the fateful day, the respondent has entered into the house of the prosecutrix in order to outrage her modesty, so as to hold that the respondent was involved in connection with the alleged crime. 14. Consequently, I do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is, thus, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Tumane