Kapil Ray vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7501 MP

                                                    1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                                              PRADESH
                                            AT GWALIOR
                                         BEFORE
                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                         ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2023
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 583 of 2015

               BETWEEN:-
               1.          KAPIL RAY S/O SHRI ASHOK ROY, AGED
                           ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O ROY COLONY
                           GHASMANDI      GWALIOR     (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

               2.          PRADEEP RAI S/O RAVINDRA RAI, AGED
                           ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O ROY COLONY
                           GHASMANDI      GWALIOR    (MADHYA
                           PRADESH),

               3.          SHARAD RAI S/O MAHESH RAI, AGED
                           ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O ROY COLONY
                           GHASMANDI     GWALIOR  (MADHYA
                           PRADESH),

                                                                            .....APPELLANTS
               (BY SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL- ADVOCATE)

               AND
               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
               POLICE STATION GWALIOR DISTT. GWALIOR
               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENT
               (BY SHRI R.S.YADAV- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE)

                           This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
               following:
                                                     ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 10-05-2023 02:42:01 PM

judgment dated 19.6.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in S.T.No.213/2024, whereby appellants have been convicted under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

In brief prosecution case is that on 14.7.2023 at 1.15 am prosecutrix lodged a report at police Station Gwalior against the appellants to the effect that she along with her mother had gone in the marriage of daughter of brother of Hukum Rai near Kali Mata Temple. She was serving the food. In the meanwhile, appellants with bad intention pulled her Dupatta and appellant Sharad Rai pushed her. She complained to her mother. When her mother asked the appellants, they abused the prosecutrix and her mother. Incident was witnessed by Monu Yadav and Ashu Yadav. On

her report, crime No.353/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506, 34 of IPC was registered. Appellants were arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. After trial, appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the appellants made submission that incident is of night when prosecutrix was serving food in the marriage function. There was a big crowd and in such circumstances possibility cannot be ruled out that due to such rush her Dupatta came down. Beside this, appellants are having previous enmity with the father of the prosecutrix namely Balveer Yadav due to a land dispute. In support of this, he drew attention of this Court to Ex.D/1 and submitted that due to this dispute, brother of father of the prosecutrix filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the uncle of the appellants in which he was Signature Not Verified acquitted vide judgment dated 5.8.2010. It is further submitted that aunt of Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 10-05-2023 02:42:01 PM

the appellants has also filed a civil suit against father of the prosecutrix and others, copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.D/2. A false report was also filed against uncle of the appellants and in the said case his uncle has been acquitted by the JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.4006/2012 vide Ex.D/3. His uncle Pappu @ Ramkumar Rai also lodged one FIR crime No.176/2015 against father of the prosecutrix and others under Sections 451, 324, 294, 506, 34 of IPC, copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.D/4. Thus, both the parties are in inimical terms, and therefore, possibility of false implication of the appellants cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for the appellants further drew attention of this Court to the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother and prayed that appellants be acquitted from the aforesaid charge.

Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As per the prosecutrix (PW-1) on 14.7.2023 she had gone in the marriage of niece of Hukum Rai near Kaliwatika Mata temple. She was serving the food. In the meanwhile, appellants with bad intention pulled her Dupatta and and appellant Sharad pushed her. She complained to her mother and when her mother questioned them, they abused the prosecutrix and her mother. She lodged the report (Ex.P/1) of the incident at police Station Gwalior. During cross-examination, she admitted that at the time of incident there was a big crowd. There was a buffet system and she was

taking food for herself. Mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has admitted that a dispute regarding plot at Sheel Nagar is going on between her Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 10-05-2023 02:42:01 PM

brother-in-law and appellants.

Monu Yadav (PW-4), who as per the FIR present at the place of incident, has stated that prosecutrix has told her mother that appellants pulled her Dupatta and on this point dispute took place. Thus, he has not seen the incident.

In defence, evidence of Hemant Rai (DW-1) and Ramkumar @ Pappu Rai (DW-2) has been adduced. Hemant Rai has stated that appellants have not come in the marriage of his sister as he did not invite them, but in the cross-examination he admitted that during marriage there was a big crowd, and therefore, he cannot say as to whether who had come and who had not. Ramkumar @ Pappu Rai has stated that a dispute regarding a plot is going on between Balveer, Ravindra and his wife. Lalsingh is brother of Pappu Yadav. A case of cheque bounce was filed by Lalsingh in which he was acquitted vide Ex.D/1. During cross- examination, he has admitted that he was not present on the spot.

Learned trial Court vide para 16 also found that parties are in inimical terms.

Looking to the allegations levelled against the appellants and the admission of the prosecutrix that there was a big crowd at the time of incident and dinner was going on as per buffet system, it is highly unnatural that appellants will pull Dupatta of the prosecutrix, specially when the parties are in inimical terms. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the case under Section 354 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. Judgment of the trial SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 10-05-2023 02:42:01 PM

Court dated 19.6.2015 is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 354 of IPC. Appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 10-05-2023 02:42:01 PM