Criminal Appeal No.220-SB of 2001 v. State of Haryana

Mr. Devender Sangwan, Advocate for Mr. M.S. Tewatia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kartar Singh, D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated January 16th, 2001 passed by Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), Hisar whereby, accused-appellant was acquitted of the offences under Sections 3(x) (xi) and 2(v) of the Act and Sections 366 and 511 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) but was convicted for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on December 31st, 1997 at about 1.00 PM, Nirmala-prosecutrix (PW-3) was returning from the field with a bundle of grass on her head. When she reached near the field of the appellant, he caught hold of her by hairs from back side. As a result thereof, the bundle of grass fell down. Her mother had also gone with her for bringing grass. The appellant gave fist blows on her face, tried to throttle and threatened to kill her. All this was done by him in order to outrage her modesty as he also tried to drag her towards the field of Sarson (Mustard) crops. She raised alarm. Her mother-Shano Devi (PW-4) reached the spot. The accused fled away.

On January 2nd, 1998, that is, after two days of the occurrence, the matter was reported to the Police by the prosecutrix. On her statement, First Information Report (Exhibit PE/2) was recorded against the appellant.

The prosecution examined five witnesses viz., Kapoor Singh Patwari (PW-1), Dr. S.K. Gupta, Medical Officer (PW- 2), Nirmala-prosecutrix (PW-3), Shano Devi (PW-4) and Om Parkash ASI (PW-5).

In his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the allegations and pleaded that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated.

In defence, accused examined Ishwar Singh (DW- 1). The plea of the appellant is that prosecutrix and her family members used to take their cattle through their field which was objected to by him and Ishwar Singh (DW-1) whose field also adjoins the field of the appellant. The present case was registered against the accused-appellant because the father, grand-father and uncle of the prosecutrix were in Haryana Police.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the grounds (i) that no offence under Section 354 IPC could be made out against the appellant because per the prosecution, the appellant caused four injuries to the prosecutrix and if he had an intention to outrage the modesty, he would not have caused injuries to the prosecutrix and; (ii) that there was delay of 2 days in reporting the matter to the Police particularly when the father, grand-father and uncle of the prosecutrix are/were Police officials and no explanation worth the name has been given by the prosecution for delay in lodging the report except that the prosecutrix kept on waiting for arrival of her father who was posted at Chandigarh at the relevant time.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has urged that the case of prosecution has been fully proved from the statement of Nirmala (PW-3) and her mother-Shano Devi (PW-4) that the accused-appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix in order to outrage her modesty.

The prosecutrix was medico-legally examined on January 2nd, 1998 by Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW-2). He found following four simple injuries on her person : -

Blue contusion 1.25 cm x .75 cm on left side of face at lower border or left mandible. 2 cm left to mid line with over lying scabbed abrasion

1.25 cm.

2. Lacerated wounds .75 x .25 cm and .5 x 25 cm on inner muscossa of upper lip at middle with margins inflamed.

3. Lacerated wound 1 x .25 cm on inner muscosa of middle of lower lip. Margins were inflamed.

4. Complaint of pain on right knee joint. No external sign was present. He also proved the Medico Legal Report (Exhibit PD).

If the evidence of Nirmala (PW-3) and her mother- Shano Devi (PW-4) is read in between the lines, it suggests that the appellant had only caused fist blows to the prosecutrix and there was no amoral act on his part regarding the offence of outraging her modesty.

The allegations that on the one hand, the appellant caused fist blows to the prosecutrix which resulted into four injuries and on the other, he tried to outrage her modesty, does not appeal to common sense. The offences of causing injury to a female and outraging her modesty are not one and the same thing. One would either cause injury to a female or would try to outrage her modesty. Otherwise too, Shano Devi (PW-4) has categorically stated that she witnessed the appellant catching hold of her daughter from back side while she was standing and when she reached the spot, the appellant was dragging her and was giving fist blows to her. Except that, he did nothing. The essence of the offence under Section 354 IPC is the intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of a woman. Had there been intention on the part of the appellant to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix, question of causing injuries to her would not have arisen.

From the facts it is not made out that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix. Apart from this, there was delay of 2 days in lodging the report to the Police which could not be explained satisfactorily by the prosecution so much so the prosecutrix did not get herself medically examined in the hospital before lodging of the report.