Chattisgarh High Court
Bhanu Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 48 of 2012
• Bhanu Singh, S/o Antar Singh Paikra, aged about 45 years, R/o
Village Karda, Police Station Kasdol, District Raipur (CG)
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Raipur, District
Raipur (CG)
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
Order On Board
14/10/2022 :
1. The present Revision is directed against the judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 2.1.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.122/2011
whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the
applicant for offence under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced him
to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.10.2007, the prosecutrix
was returning after celebrating Dussehra Festival along with her
friends namely, Chutana Bai and Bugali. When she reached near the
primary school, at that time the applicant came from behind and asked
for some snacks whereupon the prosecutrix provided some snack
(Namkeen). At that point of time, the applicant caught hold of right
hand of the prosecutrix with intent to outrage her modesty and when
she offered resistance, the applicant ran away. After reaching home,
the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her parents and lodged the FIR
on the next day of the incident i.e. 22.10.2007.
3. The prosecution filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 354
of the IPC. On the basis of evidence available on record, the trial
Judge had convicted the applicant under Sections 354 of the IPC and
sentenced him to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo
imprisonment for one month vide judgment dated 11.5.2011 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.878/2011. Against which the applicant had
preferred an Appeal before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Balodabazar, District Raipur, who, vide judgment dated 2.1.2012
affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and
maintained the conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the judgment of
conviction passed by the trial Court, which was affirmed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, is bad in law and the facts
available on record. Both the Court below failed to appreciate the fact
that the applicant had no intention to outrage the modesty of the
prosecutrix. There is old dispute between the parties because of
which the applicant has been implicated in a false case, as the
applicant had won the election of Sarpanch defeating one Bali Ram,
who was supported by the father of the prosecutrix. No independent
witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned
judgment.
6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses
before the trial Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
8. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, it is
necessary that the accused must have used criminal force and he
must have an intention to outrage the modesty or knowledge that by
his act he may outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix.
9. On close scrutiny of the evidence adduced, it reveals that the
prosecutrix (PW-1) has not stated that the applicant caught hold of her
hands with bad intention. (PW-6) Bugali @ Pushpa, niece of the
victim, would depose in her cross-examination, at para-3 that she is
not aware as to for what reasons the applicant has caught hold of
hands of the prosecutrix. (PW-3) Chutana, friend of the prosecutrix,
has also not stated that the applicant caught hold of hands of the
prosecutrix with such intention. On the contrary, the prosecutrix (PW-
1), (PW-3) Chutana and (PW-6) Bugali would clearly depose that on
the date of the incident, they were celebrating Dussehra festival. They
also admit in their cross-examination that as per the village custom,
normally young people go to the elderly people to seek their blessings.
On the date of the incident, the applicant was Sarpanch and an elderly
person in the village, therefore, the prosecutrix along with PW-2 and
PW-3 went to meet the applicant, whereupon the applicant demanded
snacks from the prosecutrix and also caught her hands.
10. Considering such facts, it cannot be safely held that the applicant
caught hold of hands of the prosecutrix with any bad intention.
11. PW-1 has also admitted in cross-examination that the applicant is not
in talking terms with her father. (PW-3) Chutana has stated that she is
not aware that father of the prosecutrix and the applicant were not
talking to each other prior to the incident. The prosecutrix and her
father (PW-2) would deny in their cross-examination that as one of
their relative has contested the election against the applicant for the
post of Sarpanch and he was defeated in the election, therefore, due
to such fraction and to take revenge, a false case has been foisted
upon the applicant.
12. (DW-1) Santram would depose that Baliram, a close relative of father
of the prosecutrix, has also contested the election against the
applicant and the election was won by the applicant. Hence father of
the prosecutrix started nurturing enmity and for such reason, the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. This fact
was not rebutted in cross-examination of the defence witness.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that there is some
political rivalry and no clear fact is emanating from the record that the
applicant with bad intention has caught hold of hands of the
prosecutrix. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charge under Section 354 of the IPC against the applicant.
14. Accordingly, the Revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
Conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant under Section
354 of the IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge.
The applicant is on bail. The bail bond shall remain in operation for a
period of 6 months from today as required under Section 437-A of the
CrPC. The applicant shall appear before the higher Court as and
when directed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Barve
