Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan vs The State Of M.P. on 6 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1902 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
LAKHAN S/O BALDEV PATEL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF GRAM BAHADURPURA, THANA SARBAI,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN SAKLE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SARBAI, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed by the appellant Lakhan S/o Baldev Patel being
aggrieved of the judgment dated 07.11.2001 passed by the learned Special
Judge (Atrocities), Chhatarpur in Special case No.91/2000.
2. Brief facts of the case, are that, in the intervening night of 7th - 8th, July,
2000, it is alleged that while the prosecutrix was sleeping at her home at village
Bahadurpura, which is about 7 kms away from the Police Chowki Sarbai,
present appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix and tried to molest
her. Charges were framed under Sections 457, 354 of IPC and in the alternate
charge was also framed under the provisions of Section 3(1)(11) of the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the ''SC/ST Act'').
3. It is submitted by Shri Laxmi Narayan Sakle, learned counsel for the
appellant that learned trial Court has exonerated the appellant from the charge
under Section 3(1)(ii) of the SC/ST Act so also from the charge under Section
457 of IPC and has convicted him under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to
Rigorous Imprisonment for one year but looking to the financial situation of the
present appellant, no fine amount was imposed.
4. It is submitted that it is a case of false implication. There is inordinate
delay in lodging of the FIR. FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged on 13.07.2000 i.e. after 5-
6 days of the accident taking place. It is submitted that the matter is in regard to
political rivalry in the rural elections and that has been converted into a case of
offence under Section 354 of IPC. It is submitted that whole prosecution story
is inconsistent. It is submitted that there is no seizure of any Katta available on
record, whereas it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that
present appellant armed with a Katta has trespassed the house of the
complainant at night and had tried to outrage her modesty.
5. It is submitted that the prosecution story is beyond comprehension
because as per the prosecution story when modesty of the complainant was
being outraged, not only her husband Gopali was sleeping close by but also as
per the prosecutrix herself, her mother-in-law, Kalawati, father-in-law Pancha
and her paternal mother-in-law Sukeertan, Phoola etc. had reached the place of
incident. Her husband was also present there. They had caught hold of the
accused but he ran away.
6. It is submitted that this story is not reliable and there are no independent
witnesses. There is no motive attached for commission of said offence and it is
a plain and simple case of local political rivalry and caste war.
7. It is submitted that Govardhan Thakur (PW-7) was examined as
prosecution witness. All the witnesses are related to each other. There is no
reason for delay in lodging the FIR. In fact the statement given by the
prosecutrix herself is contrary to the evidence which has come on record.
Prosecutrix has deposed that very next day in the early morning, she had lodged
the report at Police Station. Report was read over to her and she had put her
signatures from 'A' to 'A' part.
8. Shri Anoop Sonkar, learned Panel Lawyer, in his turn, supports the
impugned judgment.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that Ex.P-1 is a report which was admittedly lodged on
13.07.2000 i.e. after 6 days of the incident. Delay in lodging of FIR is not
explained. Lakhan has examined himself as a defence witness. He has clearly
deposed that Gopali used to leave his 15-16 goats for grazing in his farm where
he had sown Moong and Moongfali When he objected, a dispute erupted
between him and Gopali. That incident was seen by Kamlesh Pandit, Ram
Prasad Patel Mukhiya and Nakedar Nau. He deposed that he is married for last
12 years and is having two sons and one daughter. The distance between his
house and that of Pancha is of one kilometer. It is submitted that he deposed
that a false report is lodged with the help of Baburam Kori who was serving at
Police Station Sarbai as a Head Constable.
10. There is contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It is submitted
that Sukeertan had lit the torch and in the light of that torch, Lakhan was
identified. None of the prosecution witnesses had seen the accused outraging
the modesty of the prosecutrix. Presence of the appellant at the place of
incident is also doubtful. There is no explanation that as to how the appellant
entered the place of the incident. No evidence was led to show the elements of
trespassing. Therefore, once elements of trespassing could not be provided
then conviction under Section 354 of IPC, cannot be sustained, especially,
when there is no explanation for delay in lodging the FIR and FIR appears to be
an after thought. Therefore, when all these aspects are taken into consideration
then impugned judgment having failed to appreciate the evidence in the correct
perspective, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Impugned judgment dated
07.11.2001 is set aside. Conviction and sentence of the present appellant under
Section 354 of IPC is hereby set aside.
11. In above terms, this criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of.
12. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
