Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 8 December, 2021
Author: Vishal Dhagat
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3016/1998
APPELLANTS VIJAY SINGH
VS.
STATE OF M.P.
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered By HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether approved for
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For appellant: Shri Anil Khare, Sr. Advocate with Shri
Pranjal Diwakar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Gaurav Tiwari, Panel Layer
( J U D G M E N T )
08/12/2021
Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order
dated 17/11/1998 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge,
Tikamgarh, in Sessions Trial No.21/1998, convicting and
sentencing the appellant under section 354 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to
undergo R.I for 6 months and fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I for 6
months and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof, to
undergo further R.I for 2 months and R.I 2 months
respectively.
2. As per prosecution story, appellant Vijay Singh Dangi
belongs to General category and prosecutrix in this case
belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. On 21.3.1998 at about
7.00 P.M prosecutrix was returning to her house. On the way
appellant caught hold of hand of prosecutrix and pressed
both her breast and expressed his desire to do intercourse
with her. On this prosecutrix shouted. Hearing her voice, her
husband Harprasad arrived there and appellant ran away
from the spot.
3. Prosecution examined Panabai (PW-1), Harprasad (PW-
2), Raju @ Jamuna (PW-3), Santosh (PW-4) and Kamal Singh
(PW-5). Appellant examined Mahendra Singh (DW-1) in his
defence. Prosecutrix has stated in chief as well as in cross
examination that appellant had outraged her modesty and
she belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. Her version was
supported by Raju @ Jamuna (PW-3), Santosh (PW-4) and
Kamal Singh (PW-5). Defence witness had stated that there
was enmity between the parties and, therefore, accused has
falsely been implicated in the case.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that there is
delay in lodging of F.I.R and same was lodged on the next
day. There was enmity between appellant and prosecutrix,
therefore, Court below had committed an error of law in
convicting the appellant. Witnesses, in the case, were
unworthy of credit due to enmity. There was delay in
lodging of F.I.R, therefore, prosecution story cannot be
believed. Appellant has relied on judgments reported in the
case of Jagdish and others vs. State of Haryana (2019)
7 SCC 711 (para-8). Relying on said judgment it was argued
that there is delay in lodging of F.I.R and witnesses have not
been examined, therefore, false implication cannot be ruled
out. On said ground, learned counsel for appellant made a
prayer for quashing of judgment and conviction.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State
supported the judgment passed by the trial court. It is
submitted by him that delay was properly explained. There
was enmity between family of appellant and prosecutrix
which was the reason why appellant had committed said act
with the prosecutrix. In view of same, prayer was made for
dismissal of appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Incident had occurred at 7 p.m in the night of
21.3.1998. Police Station is situated 15 kms. away from the
village and, therefore, F.I.R was lodged on the next day. Trial
court has relied on para-6 of examination in chief of
prosecutrix and held that delay in the lodging of F.I.R does
not vitiate the prosecution story. In cross-examination
appellant has not challenged the reason given for delay in
lodging F.I.R.
8. I do not find any error or infirmity in the said finding of
the trial court. Incident had occurred at night and police
station was situated at a distant place, therefore, delay in
lodging F.I.R will not vitiate the prosecution story. Enmity is
double edged weapon and a prosecution story cannot be
disbelieved only on basis of enmity between the parties.
Appellant has to show infirmity in the prosecution coupled
with enmity which will make prosecution case unworthy of
credit. Complainant made no attempt in cross-examination
to hide enmity and accepted the same. Prosecutrix is
trustworthy and there is no dent in prosecution case which
vitiates it.
9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
appeal, filed against judgment dated 17/11/1998 passed by
learned Special Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Sessions Trial
No.21/1998, convicting and sentencing the appellant under
section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is
dismissed.
10. Bail bonds and surety furnished by appellant are
cancelled. Appellant, if is on bail, be taken back into custody
for serving out the remaining part of the jail sentences.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
mms
Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON
Date: 2021.12.09 14:19:54 +05'30'
