State of Rajasthan v. For

: Mr. Anil Jain, Adv. With Mr. Dushyant Jain, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR 04/03/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated

22.09.1995 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Special Case No.94/1993, whereby learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Under Section 354 of IPC-Nine months’ rigorous i) imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment, & Under Section 3(1)(ii) of Scheduled Caste and ii) Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1989’)-One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:9457] (2 of 4) [CRLA-500/1995]

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged an FIR before Police Station Saipau, Dholpur to the effect that on

31.08.1993 when she was doing agricultural work in her agricultural land, the accused-appellant came there and assaulted her in order to outrage her modesty and tried to commit rape on her. As the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community, therefore, the FIR No.224/1993 at Police Station Saipau, Dholpur was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376 and 511 of IPC and Section 3(1)(ii) of the Act of 1989. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused- appellant. Learned trial Court charged the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 3(1)(ii) of the Act of 1989.

3. During trial, as many as statements of six witnesses were recorded from the side of prosecution. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., however, no defence was produced on behalf of the accused-appellant. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court passed the order of conviction and sentence for the offences as mentioned hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that in the impugned FIR, the accused-appellant was alleged to assault the prosecutrix in order to outrage her modesty and the incident was said to be seen by Bhavuti Jatav and Maya Jatav, who were relatives of the prosecutrix and their names have been mentioned in the impugned FIR as eye witnesses. Leaned counsel also submitted that the eye-witness Maya Jatav, who was examined as PW-2 before learned trial Court, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version and the other eye witness [2025:RJ-JP:9457] (3 of 4) [CRLA-500/1995] Bhavuti Jatav, who was examined as PW-3, has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he went to the agricultural land of prosecutrix he saw nothing but only saw that the accused- appellant from his back side when he was running away and thus, he did not see the face of the accused on the spot.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that except sole testimony of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW1, there is no corroborative evidence on record and learned trial Court has committed an error in arriving at the conclusion of convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant, therefore, this appeal be allowed and the accused-appellant be acquitted from the offences as mentioned hereinabove.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order dated 22.09.1995 passed by learned trial Court.

5. Admittedly, it is true that Maya Jatav and Bhavuti Jatav are named in the impugned FIR, as the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident, however PW-2 i.e. Maya Jatav, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version. It is also noteworthy that Maya Jatav was said to be present in her agricultural land, which is adjacent to the agricultural land of prosecutrix, where so- called incident is said to be occurred and the prosecutrix also mentioned in the FIR as well as in her statements recorded before learned trial Court that on hearing her hue and cry, Maya Jatav and Bhavuti Jatav came on the spot and saw the accused, but PW- 2 i.e. Maya Jatav has not supported the prosecution story. PW-3 i.e. Bhavuti Jatav, who was named in the FIR as another eye- witness, has also stated in his statement recorded before learned trial Court that on hearing the hue and cry, he went to the [2025:RJ-JP:9457] (4 of 4) [CRLA-500/1995] agricultural land of prosecutrix and he saw nothing but only saw the accused-appellant Raju running away, however, in his cross- examination, he stated that he did not see the face of the accused-appellant on the spot and he only saw back side of the appellant. Except the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, who was examined before learned trial Court as PW-1, there is no evidence corroborating the testimony of the prosecturix whereas both the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident i.e. PW-2 and PW-3, whose names have been mentioned in the impugned FIR, have not supported the prosecution story, therefore, this Court finds that learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned order dated

22.09.1995, convicting the accused-appellant and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal filed by the accused- appellant is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated

22.09.1995 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Special Case No.94/1993 is quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(ii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. Stay application and other pending applications also stand disposed of. AARZOO ARORA /03 (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J