Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 412 of 2005 1 - Dileshwar @ Dinesh, S/o Maleehram Sahu, aged about 22 years 2- Nankiprasad S/ o Baldeo Sahu, aged about 23 years Both are R/o Village- Sewar, Police Station- Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Respondent For Appellants For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, G. A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 24/06/2025 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) has been filed challenging the judgment dated 25.04.2005 passed in Special Criminal Case No.74/2003 by the Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Bilaspur (CG) by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence 2 U/s 354 of IPC U/s 323 of IPC RI for 6 months RI for 3 Months Both the sentences to run concurrently 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a First Information Report was lodged by the complainant (PW-1) on 19.03.2003 at about 15.30 hrs in the Chakarbhata Police Station. As per report it is alleged that on 19.03.2003 the complainant (PW-1) along with PW-2 was returning from the house of teacher Shankarlal after seeing the result, when they were washing their hands and feet in a pond, at the same time, the accused/appellant- Dinesh came from behind and caught both the arms of PW-1 and accused- Nanki caught both the arms of PW-2. They were held by appellants in order to outrage their modesty. On a hue and cry being made by complainant (PW-1) and PW-2, Satyanarayan (PW-9), Satyavrat (PW-7) and Dwarika (PW-3) came to the spot. At that time father of appellant Dinesh namely Malechram came along with a Lathi and all the accused persons started abusing, threatening to dire consequences and by assaulting caused injury. Upon which on the basis of report, investigation was set on motion. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. The appellants and other co-accused Malechram were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323 r/w 34, 506-B of IPC and Section 3 (i) (xi) & 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “ Special Act”). The accused/appellants however, denied the charge framed against them and claimed for trial. 3. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Malechram of all the charges. The appellants Dinesh and Nanki Prasad were acquitted of charges punishable under Section 506-B IPC and Section 3 (i)(xi) & Section 3 (i)(x) of Special Act, however, they were convicted under Section 354 3 & 323 IPC and imposed with the sentence as described above which is challenged before this Court by them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the conviction of the appellants under Section 354 IPC is not made out as the statements of victims are not credible and there are majority of contradictions and omissions. He submits that the incident is of the year 2005, therefore, alternatively he submits that in the event the appeal is dismissed, sentence may be reduced by enhancing the fine adequately. 6. On the other hand, State counsel supports the judgment impugned and submits that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have supported the case of prosecution. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first question which comes before this Court as to whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of accused/appellants under Section 354 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The allegation made by PW-1 and PW-2 for outraging their modesty are against two accused persons. As per statement of PW-1, when they were washing their feet and hands in the pond, the accused/appellants Nanki & Dinesh held them from their back side and at that point of time they shouted, on hearing when Dwarka Prasad (PW-3) came, they assaulted him by hands and fists and thereafter Satyavrat, Satyanarayan came and they went to Chakarbhata Police Station to lodge the report which is Ex. P-7. From her statement it does not appear that her hands were held in order to outrage her modesty. Apart from this this witness has stated contrary to her Police statement Ex. P-8 there is contradictions in her Police statement as well as in her Court statement. Perusal of Ex. P-8 Police statement, it appears that the factor of coming of Satyanarayan, Satyavrat and Dwarka is mentioned however she has not been able to produce as to why they were returned. The statement of PW-2 is also in the same line she has stated that appellant Dinesh came from back side and held her waist and hand. This witness is also silent to the fact that there was an intention on the part of the 4 appellant Dinesh to outrage her modesty. Though this fact has been mentioned in the Police statement (Ex. P-8) she happens to not state the same statement as before the Court. Therefore, in order to attract the conviction under Section 354 IPC criminal force has to be used with an intention to outrage the modesty. Though from the statement it appears that the hands of PW-1 & PW-2 were held by appellants but it does not appear in light of statement, as to whether which was done with an intention to outrage their modesty. There may be various factors for holding the hands, one aspect is also important that it is a tendency in the people to exaggerate the happening of incident which is also reflected in the case in hand because they have not stated anything with regard to the fact that their hands were held and their modesty were outraged only on the ground that they belong to scheduled caste whereas the same has been mentioned while registering the FIR. Therefore, the statement in respect to the commission of offence by the appellants under Section 354 IPC does not appear to be trustworthy or credible to sustain the conviction, therefore, the conviction of appellants under Section 354 IPC is set aside. 9. This Court would now deal with the correctness of conviction of the appellants under Section 323 of IPC. From the evidence gathered it appears that some incident has taken place. It is the case of prosecution that when Satyavrat (PW-7) & Satyanarayan (PW-9) came, they sustained certain injuries. This fact is also corroborated by statement of Dr. Abdul Safiq Khan (PW-10), therefore, appellants’ conviction under Section 323 of IPC is maintained. The submission is made by learned counsel for the appellants that the sentence may be reduced. The incident had occurred on 19.03.2003, appellants are facing the trial for the last 22 years and they are regularly appearing before the trial Court during trial and even after during pendency of this appeal and they did not misuse the liberty granted by this Court. The appellants have reached to a mature age, their freedom do not appear to be detrimental to society, by this time they must have reformed and Section 323 IPC is punishable only with fine instead of sending them back to jail, 5 this Court deems it appropriate to punish the appellants with fine only, therefore, a fine of Rs.1000/- each is imposed upon the appellants out of which Rs.500/- each shall be given to Satyanarayan (PW-9) and Satyavrat (PW-7) as compensation. If the fine amount is not paid/deposited within 3 months from today, the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment of 7 days. 10. Appeal thus partly allowed. The bail bonds of the appellants are discharged. Records of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.07.01 12:15:20 +0530 Parul