Balrampur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpur, Distt
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 91 of 2016 1 - Akhilesh Yadav S/o Bigan Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Lau Gutrapara, Police Station Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh. 2 - Umesh Yadav S/o Maanjeet Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Lau Gutrapara, Police Station Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Rev. Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj And Civil Distt. Ambikapur Sarguja. , Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 28/03/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short the Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.01.2016, passed by Learned Special Judge( Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act) Surguja (Ambikapur) in Special Sessions Case No. 07/2012, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- 2 Conviction Sentence 354 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 06 months and fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 01 month. 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 01 month and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in for assaulting Faguna default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 15 days. 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 01 month and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in for assaulting Magunu default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 15 days. Appellant No.2. 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 01 month and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in for assaulting Faguna default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 15 days. 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 01 month and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in for assaulting Magunu default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 15 days. The sentences imposed upon the appellants are directed to run concurrently. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.2011 a report has been lodged by PW-2 against the appellants with the allegation that on 21.10.2011 in the morning her husband had gone to celebrate festival to his brother's house. In the evening when he return back to his house, his wife informed him that at about 10:00 a.m. when she had gone towards field for grazing of her cattles, his neighbour Akhilesh Yadav tried to outrage her modesty by holding her hand and dragging towards field, somehow she could save herself and came back to her house. When she had gone to the appellant and asked about the incident, the present appellants abused him by the name of his caste and with filthy language and assaulted by danda and axe by which he received 3 injuries on his body. His brother Magunu intervened and then the accused persons fled away from the place. The FIR Ex.-P/1 has been registered against the appellants for the offence under Section 354(2), 294, 506-B, 323 and 34 of IPC the injured persons Faguna PW-2 and Magunu PW-4 were sent for their medical examination to Community Health Centre, Rajpur where PW-3 Dr. Preetam Ram medically examined him and gave report Ex.- P/2 and Ex.-P/3 respectively. While medically examined the injured Faguna and the doctor has noticed one lacerated wound having 2x1 1/2 cm, margin irregular deep upto skin on left frontal region which was caused by hard and blunt object and injuries are simple in nature, whereas on the body of the injured Magunu PW-4 one lacerated wound was found having size 1x1/2 cm. on frontal region which was casued by heard and blunt object and simple in nature. 3. The spot map Ex.-P/4 was prepared by the police. Social status certificate of the injured has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/5. The appellants have been arrested on 23.10.2011 and one wooden club has been seized from the appellant Akhilesh Yadav and one axe has been seized from the appellant Umesh Yadav. 4. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur for the offence under Section 354, 294 and 506-B, 34 of IPC and 3(i)(x) and 3(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989(in short 'SC/ST' Act). The case was committed to the Court of learned trial Court for its trial. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant Akhilesh Yadav for the offence under Section 354, 506-I, 323/34 and 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act whereas the charge against the appellant Umesh Yadav has been 4 framed for the offence under Section 506-I. 323 of 34 of IPC and 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. Vide order dated 11.01.2016 the charge has been amended and the additional charge of Section 323/34 has been framed against both the appellants for causing simple injuries to the injured Magunu Korwa after amending the charge, the learned trial Court has observed that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants as the defence have already taken regarding causing injuries to the injured persons namely Faguna and Magunu, therefore, the learned trial Court proceeded for hearing of the parties and to decide the case. 7. After hearing the parties the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. She would further submits that in the previous night the appellant Akhilesh Yadav has lodged the report to the police with respect to the present complainant PW-2 Faguna on which the police investigation was going on and in order to save himself a false report has been lodged by the complainant and has made his wife instrumental to save himself from the report lodged by the appellant Akhilesh Yadav. In fact no incident was occurred on the alleged date and time. She would also submits that there was festival celebrating by the family members of the complainant and in between that it is very uncommon that the wife of the complainant had gone to the field for grazing her cattles when the other family members were there in their house. It is also suspicious that during the whole day he has not disclosed the incident to anyone. The witnessed have admitted that the appellant Akhilesh Yadav has 5 lodged a report against the PW-2, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the PW-1 and false implication of the appellants for the offence of outraging the modesty. She fairly submits that some dispute arose between the parties and appellants and PW-2 for which the PW-2 and PW-4 received injuries and the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC. But there is no sufficient sentence with respect to the offence of outraging the modesty of the PW-1. She would further submits that offence of Section 323 is not provided any minimum sentence the appellant have already remained in jail for about 8 days for the offence is of the year 2011 and presently the appellants are aged about 36 years and 45 years. They are having responsibility of their family, therefore, their period of sentence may be undergone. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that there are sufficient evidence against the appellant that Akhilesh Yadav tried to commit outrage the modesty of PW-2 and when her husband came to the appellants to inquire about the incident they assaulted him for which they have lodged the report and injuries have been found on the body of the PW-2 and PW-4. There is sufficient evidence to convict the appellant Akhilesh for the offence under Section 354 of IPC as the PW-1 has duly supported her case. Further the injuries caused by the appellants to the PW-2 and PW-4 have been supported by the doctor PW-3 who also has found injuries on the body of the injured persons, therefore, there is sufficient evidence against the appellants which has rightly been considered by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. PW-1, who is the wife of the complainant PW-2 have stated in her evidence that on the date of incident at about 10:00 a.m. when she was going for grazing her cattles, on the way the appellant Akhilesh Yadav caught-hold her hand and tried to drag towards shrubs she raised her alarm and somehow 6 came out from the clutches of the appellant Akhilesh Yadav and came back in her house in the evening. She informed the incident to her family members and in the evening when her husband came, the incident was disclosed to him also. When he went to the appellant to inquire about the incident, her husband was being assaulted by the accused persons by which her husband received injuries on his head, thereafter, on the next day they lodged the report. 12. In cross-examination, she admitted that on the date of incident the festival was celebrating in the village at that time Ramna, Korwa and Magunu were invited to her house and stayed for whole day in her house. Since it was the festival of navakai day. Some census was going on in the village in which her husband and accused persons were involved. Though she denied that at the time of census, her husband has raised objection on inclusion of the name of the mother of the appellant Akhilesh Yadav but she stated that when her husband had gone to the appellants with respect to the incident occurred with her, the appellant Umesh Yadav assaulted him. She witnessed the incident of marpeet. She admitted that the appellant Akhilesh Yadav has lodged a report to the police with respect to the said incident and the police came to the village for investigation on the report made by the appellant Akhilesh Yadav on the next day they had lodged a report. 13. PW-2, who is the husband of the PW-1 have stated in his evidence that on the date of incident his wife had gone for grazing of her cattles and when she return back she informed that on the way the appellant tried to outrage her modesty and when he had gone to the appellants to know about the incident, the appellants assaulted to him by lathi by which he received injuries on his head. His brother Magunu has intervened in the incident and then Magunu was being assaulted by the accused persons, thereafter, they had gone to lodge the report. In cross-examination he also admitted that on the date of incident guests were came to his house for celebrating the navakai festival, 7 he also admitted that he along with his guests have consumed liquor and on that day village secretary was engaged in census work. He admitted that the appellant Akhilesh Yadav was adding the name of his mother but he denied that he made any objection in it. He voluntarily stated that he only ask from him as to why he caught-hold his wife. He admitted that had gone to lodge the report to the police, on his report police came in the investigation and only after that they have lodge the report. 14. PW-4, Magunu Korwa is the brother of the PW-2 he too have stated in his evidence that when his sister-in-law informed about the incident, they had gone to appellants to enquire about the incident. In the village the census proceedings was going on and appellants were also there. When they asked about the incident from the appellants they assaulted him and his brother by which both of them were received injuries on their head. This witness have declared hostile and thereafter he deposed the incident in cross-examination. He too have admitted that on the date of incident a number of guests were present in his house and it was the day of celebration of navakai festival. He also admitted that nearby there house, the census proceedings was going on and panch, secretary and other villagers were there. He too have admitted that the appellant Akhilesh Yadav was also there for adding name of his mother and they have raised objection in adding of the name of his mother. He has admitted that in the house of Kanwala Korwa they have eaten meals and consumed liquor and from where they directly came to the place of census. 15. PW-3, Dr. Preetam Ram who medically examined PW-2 and PW-4 have stated in his evidence that on 21.10.2011 he medically examined the injured Faguna and found one lacerated wound on head which was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object and gave his report Ex./2. On the same day he also examined injured Magunu and found one lacerated wound on his forehead which was also simple in nature and gave report Ex.P/3. The 8 injuries found on the body of the injured persons can be caused by falling on the ground and he admitted that same could have been caused by the said falling. 16. From the entire evidence, it comes on record that on the date of incident some dispute arose between the appellants and the PW-2 and PW-4. When the census proceeding was going on and the appellant Akhilesh Yadav tried to adding name of his mother in the list of census, in which PW-2 and PW-4 raised objection. Some dispute arose there which culminated into marpeet between them by which PW-2 and PW-4 received simple injuries. With respect to that incident the appellant Akhilesh Yadav lodge a report to the police and the police came to the village for investigation. It is only on the next day of that incident, he present report has been lodged by PW-2. In the facts and circumstances of the case that on the alleged date of incident the family members were celebrating the nawakai festival and a number of guests were present in the house of the complainant, even there was the census was going on nearby house of the complainant, it appears that a number of persons present there at that time. Normally on the day of any festival the persons stopped their routine work and engaged themselves in the celebration along with the guests. By saying that on the date of incident the complainant had gone to grazing her cattles and on the way the appellant Akhilesh Yadav tried to outrage her modesty by dragging her towards shrubs is appears to be doubtful as immediately after she has not disclosed the incident to anyone and even if it is disclosed to anyone none of her family members or guests have taken any action immediately. The incident is of 10:00 a.m. was informed to her husband in the evening. Particularly when the other guests and family members were present in the house and the place was full of persons due to festival celebrating by them. The alleged incident was occurred in the evening between the PW-2 and PW-4 and the appellants. When the appellant Akhilesh Yadav lodge the report in the 9 evening the police came in the village, the present report has been lodged by PW-2 by saying that on the previous day the appellant Akhilesh Yadav tried to commit outrage modesty of his wife. In such peculiar facts of the case the conduct of the PW-1 itself is doubtful as to whether she actually been subjected to outrage her modesty or the appellant Akhilesh Yadav trying to outrage her modesty. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not be established the offence against the appellant Akhilesh Yadav under Section 354 of IPC and he is entitled for benefit of doubt and by giving benefit of doubt the appellant Akhilesh Yadav is acquitted from the offence under Section 354 of IPC and his sentence with respect to Section 354 of IPC is also set aside. 17. So far as the offence of Section 323/34 of IPC is concerned, both the injured PW-2 and PW-4 have constantly stated that when they had gone to the appellants to inquire about the previous incident the appellants have assaulted them by lathi and axe by which they received injuries on their head. Their injuries have been found proved by the evidence of doctor who medically examined the injured persons and found lacerated wound on the forehead of both injured persons which are simple in nature. Therefore, the prosecution is able to prove that the injured PW-2 and PW-4 have received injuries by the act of the appellants and their conviction for the offence under Section 323/34 is hereby upheld. 18. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the submissions made by learned
Legal Reasoning
counsel for the appellants that the offence of Section 323 does not provide any minimum sentence the offence is of the year 2011 and the appellants are presently aged about 36 and 45 years. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it would meet ends of justice that for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC, the undergone period of the appellants may be considered to be sufficient sentence as they have remained in jail for about 07 days. 10 19. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in Para 9 as follows: “9. Western jurisprudes and sociologists. from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samuel Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : “The laws of England are written in blood”. Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If it is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration. that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed. that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub- culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts. since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : “If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 20. For the forgoing reasons, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC (on two count for causing hurt to Faguna and Magunu) is maintained. However, their sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by them. The fine imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 323/34 (on two count) is maintained. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. 21. With the aforesaid modification/alteration, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall continue for further period of 6 months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS. 11 22. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25 11:29:07 +0530