Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahant Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 26 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2476 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
MAHANT KUMAR S/O CHETAN YADAV, AGED ABOUT 22
Y E A R S , SAKIN DHOPGHAT,PS.SALETAKERI,THANA
BIRSA,DISTT.BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR YADAV - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S.PATEL- PANEL LAWYER )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON : 01-02-2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 26-02-2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for prouncement this day, Justice Gajendra Singh passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C has been preferred
feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 12-12-2006 in Special Case No. 57/06
by Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 Balaghat whereby the
appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989 and under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to RI for one year and
fine of Rs. 200/- and RI of six months respectively with default stipulations.
2 . Case before the trial Court was that the appellant/accused does not
belong to the SC/ST category and the victim (PW-1) belongs of SC/ST
category as per (Ex. P/2). On 17-07-2006 at about 3:00 PM, the prosecutrix
(PW-1), her elder sister (PW-2) were collecting woods for preparing food near
the Government High School at village Damoh Police Station Birsa District-
Balaghat. The appellant/accused approached the victim (PW-1) and offered
some money to engage in sexual intercourse. Victim declined the offer and
appellant/accused caught hold the right hand of the victim. Victim (PW-1)
raised alarm and pushed the elder sister (PW-2) of the victim (PW-1) and
caused injuries in the head of victim by a wooden stick and in the right hand
near elbow and the incident was witnessed by one Ranjit also. An FIR was
lodged on 17-07-2006 at 17:15 PM as Crime No. 43/06 was registered at Police
Station Birsa District Balaghat. The victim was medically examined. Formalities
of investigation were completed. A report was filed before the competent
Court.
3 . Charges under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and in
alternative under Section 354 and 323 of IPC were framed. The
appellant/accused abjured the guilt and prosecution examined victim as (PW-1),
her elder sister as (PW-2), one Ravi Kumar as (PW-3), Medical Officer- Dr. M.
Meshram as (PW-4), Investigating Officer-I.P. Mandavi as (PW-5) and
Inspector- Santosh Bharti as (PW-6).
4 . The trial Court on appreciating the testimony of victim (PW-1), her
elder sister (PW-2), Medical officer-M.Meshram (PW-4) found proved that the
appellant/accused does not belong to the SC/ST category and victim belongs to
the Scheduled Tribe Category and also found proved that on 17-07-2006, the
appellant/accused used criminal force on victim (PW-1) to outrage her modesty
and also caused voluntary injuries and convicted and sentenced the
appellant/accused as per paragraph-1 of the judgment.
5 . This appeal has been preferred challenging the conviction and
sentence on the ground that the trial Court overlooked the circumstance that at
the place of incident, there was rush and general public were passing. So the so-
called incident is not possible. The intention of the appellant/accused to outrage
the modesty or dishonor of the victim does not appear.
6. Heard.
7. Learned Government Pleader supported the conviction and sentence.
8. Perused the record.
9 . The learned Trial Court has relied on the sole testimony of victim
(PW-1) and corroborated by the Medical Officer-M.Meshram (PW-4).
10. This Court is re-appreciating the evidence of these witnesses.
11. Victim (PW-1) has stated that at the time of incident, her elder sister
(PW-2) was also present. She also stated at the time of incident, one Ravi came
at the place of indent and he instructed the appellant/accused to go from the
spot then, the appellant/accused also abused Ravi also. She also stated that
Ranjit came there and he rebuked the appellant/accused to her. She further
states that the report was lodged by her mother and she only put her thumb
impression on the report and the incident to doctor was also narrated by her
mother.
12. Her elder sister does not support the prosecution. She only states
that she heard the cry of her sister but, she did not see anything. She was
declared hostile but, nothing came in support of the prosecution. Ravi Kumar
was also examined as (PW-3) but, he did not support the prosecution. Ranjit
was not examined during investigation or before this Court.
13. The reasons recorded by the learned trial Court for relying the sole
testimony of (PW-1) is that she has no reason to falsely implicate the
appellant/accused.
14. When we refer to paragraph-3 of the victim (PW-1), where she states
that one Ranjit came to the spot and he rebuked by caste to her then, her alone
testimony does not pass the test of sterling witness.
15. Accordingly, the trial Court committed error in relying to the sole
testimony of victim (PW-1).
16. Accordingly,the conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused
cannot be maintained. This appeal is allowed a n d the conviction of the
appellant/accused is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted from the
charges. His bail bonds stands discharged.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
PG
