Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pintu @ Brajbhushan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 68 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
PINTU @ BRAJBHUSHAN S/O KAILASH BABU TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MANDHA P.S.
SALEHA, DISTRICT PANNA (M.P)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI O.P TRIPATHI-ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
SALEHA DISTRICT PANNA (M.P)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN TIWARI -PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(ii) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2011
passed by Special Judge (Atrocity) Panna District Panna in Special Case No.14
of 2011, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for
commission of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocity) Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and further directed to pay fine of Rs,1000/- with default stipulation.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.10.2010 at about 7 P.M
in the evening the prosecutrix had gone in an isolated field to answer the call of
the nature. The accused is stated to have committed act with an intention to
outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix. He pushed the prosecutrix by neck and
she fell in the mud. When the prosecutrix called for help, her husband and wife
of elder brother of husband of the prosecutrix came to her rescue. The accused
stated to have threatened the prosecutrix that if she told the incident to
anybody, then he would strangulate her to death.
The FIR was registered and charges were framed under section
3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act and Section 506 Part-II of the
IPC. In the police investigation, Smt. Bino Bai, who is wife of elder brother of
husband of the prosecutrix, stated that she heard the calls for help made by the
prosecutrix and husband of the prosecutrix went to her rescue and when they
approached the accused Pintu left the prosecutrix and ran away.
The husband of the prosecutrix Ram Prakash also deposed in police
statement that he heard calls of help from his wife and when he reached to
rescue his wife, the accused ran away. Both of them also deposed that the
blouse of the prosecutrix and other clothes were soiled when she was pushed to
ground by the accused.
In the court statement, the husband of the prosecutrix deposed as PW-2
and turned hostile. He deposed that whatever is in his knowledge, is as per what
has been told to him by the prosecutrix. He did not support the prosecutrix
version entirely.
The wife of elder brother of husband of the prosecutrix was examined as
PW-3 and she also deposed in the court statement that she saw the accused but
she knows only what has been told by the prosecutrix to her. She was
confronted with some portion of her police statement and she denied to have
stated so to the police.
The prosecutrix was also examined as PW-1 and in her court statement
she deposed that she sustained multiple injuries in her body and her clothes
were torned. However, she supported the incident as per the FIR.
The medical witness PW-4 has categorically stated that no injury was
found on the person of the prosecutrix and none of the clothes were found
torned. The police witness PW-5 also stated that the prosecutrix did not
complaint about injury to her body and her clothes getting torn.
The court below has considered these aspects and looking to the
evidence placed on record, the trial court held that the allegation against the
present appellant that he assaulted or used force upon the prosecution with an
intent to outrage her modesty is not proved beyond the doubt but it is proved
that accused had intention to insult the prosecutrix and on this ground the court
below has convicted the appellant/accused under section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocity) Act.
The court below has recorded the finding that there was no intention of
the present appellant to outrage modesty of the prosecutrix and this part is not
proved. However, it cannot be held to be proved that he had intention to insult
or dishonour the prosecutrix.
Looking to the aforesaid contradiction and inconsistency in the evidence
of the prosecutrix as per medical evidence and also the fact that her husband
and the wife of elder brother of husband of the prosecutrix, have not supported
the incident, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19.12.2011 passed by Special Judge (Atrocity) Panna District
Panna in Special Case No.14 of 2011 is set aside. The appellant stands
acquitted upon benefit of doubt. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if
any, are discharged.
Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
tarun
