Manoj Kumar Singh Thakur vs The State Of M.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 14442 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manoj Kumar Singh Thakur vs The State Of M.P. on 16 May, 2024

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                                                            1
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                                                 ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 766 of 2005

                          BETWEEN:-
                          MANOJ KUMAR SINGH THAKUR, S/O SHRI GORELAL
                          SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC:
                          AGRICULTURIST, R/O PURANI BASTI, DHANPURI, P.S.
                          DHANPURI, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                          (NONE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S.               DHANPURI,
                          DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

                                Reserved    on    : 02.05.2024
                                Pronounced on : 16.05.2024

                                This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on

                          for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                                        JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed for being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.03.2005 passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'), District Shahdol in Special Case No.46/2003, whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') has been convicted for the offence of Sections 456, 323, 354 IPC and Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act and sentenced to undergo 6

months' R.I. and fine of Rs.200/- for the offence of Section 456 of IPC, 6 months' R.I. for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act with default clauses regarding non-payment of fine.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of this criminal appeal are that on 31.03.2003 at around 09.30 p.m. when prosecutrix was inside her house and was cooking food, the accused forcibly entered her room and used criminal force to outrage her modesty; he threw her on the ground, pressed her breast, assaulted her and then left the place. Prosecutrix got the FIR registered against the accused, she was medically examined and the matter was investigated.

After the filing of charge-sheet the trial followed and the impugned judgment was passed.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the impugned judgment is bad in law and on facts; the statements of prosecutrix reveal that Ghanshyam Mistri and Rakesh Baiga were present on the place, but both these important witnesses were not examined before the trial court; the other eyewitness Dukhiya Bai (PW/2) failed to support the prosecution story; there was delay in lodging the FIR; though 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, but no one except the prosecutrix supported the prosecution story; her statement remained uncorroborated, therefore, it was prayed that the judgment be set- aside and the appeal be allowed acquitting the accused.

4. State has opposed the appeal claiming that no interference is required in the impugned judgment.

5. At this stage of final arguments accused failed to appear and submit the arguments hence arguments only on behalf of State were heard.

6. Prosecution in this case has relied upon the testimony of total 7 witnesses

and they are prosecutrix (PW/1), her landlady and the eye-witness to the incident (PW/2), S.I. D.K. Singh (PW/3), who registered the FIR and partially investigated the crime, Patwari Mohan Ram Garg (PW/4), who prepared the panchnama and spot map, SDOP A.K. Shukla (PW/5), who partially investigated the matter, J. Kispotta (PW/6), who issued the caste certificate of prosecutrix and Dr. K.K. Gautam (PW/7), who medically examined the prosecutrix.

7. The accused has primarily challenged the prosecution case in this appeal on the ground Ghanshyam Mistri and Rakesh Baiga, who were allegedly present at the time of crime were not examined before the trial Court and there is no independent corroboration of the prosecution story. It is true that alleged eye- witnesses Ghanshyam Mistri and Rakesh Baiga were not produced as witnesses by the prosecution and alleged eye-witness (PW/2) failed to support the prosecution story, but this Court has to examine whether the independent corroboration was required in the matter. The cross-examination of prosecutrix reveal that no story of enmity was set up by accused during this cross- examination which reveals that there was no reason for the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused in the crime.

8. It has been suggested that the false report was made with an object to obtain the compensation amount from the Government, but there is no evidence

to give strength to this suggestion. Prosecutrix (PW/1) has completely denied this suggestion that she was inspired by monetary benefits and for this she lodged a false report. There is no piece of evidence available on record that she received any monetary benefit, at any stage, for making this report. No rebuttal evidence is available on record which would support the alleged motive for

monetary benefit.

9. The accused has heavily relied upon the fact that the statements of prosecutrix have not been supported by any corroborative piece of evidence, but every criminal case does not warrant such independent corroboration. The angle of enmity or any other extraneous motive has not been established in the case and the prosecutrix has been stable on her testimony as reflected by the fact that not a single statement given by her during her Court testimony was contradicted with her FIR or the police statements. She has been stable and consistence on the fact that she was all alone in the house when the accused came there, closed the door from inside and used criminal force to outrage her modesty. It is also claimed by her that in struggle to protect herself she was assaulted by accused.

10. Dr. K.K. Gautam examined the prosecutrix and found two visible injuries on her body, which were caused by hard and blunt object. It is suggested to Dr. K.K. Gautam (PW/7) that these injuries could have been caused otherwise also and he has admitted this suggestion, but this suggestion itself does not paramount to evidence. It was only a possibility which was admitted by Dr. K.K. Gautam, but to prove that the prosecutrix sustained injuries on account of that possibility, was an altogether different aspect and the burden to prove this possibility was solely upon accused.

11. From the foregoing discussion, it is established that the accused used criminal force upon prosecutrix to outrage her modesty and in this act caused simple injuries to her. It is also established that these offences were committed by accused after entering into the house of prosecutrix. The learned trial Court has convicted the accused for this act under Section 456 IPC, but there is no evidence of house breaking or lurking house trespass by night. This act of

accused of entering into the house of prosecutrix with an intent to commit offence punishable with imprisonment falls within the ambit of Section 451 IPC, which is an offence of lesser nature as compared to the offence of Section 456 IPC. Therefore, the conviction of accused both under Section 323 IPC and Section 354 IPC is upheld, while the conviction under Section 456 IPC is converted to the one under Section 451 IPC.

12. To prove that the prosecutrix belonged to scheduled tribe category, the prosecution has relied upon her caste/tribe certificate marked as Exhibit P-9, which was issued by Sub Divisional Officer and was proved by the Officer, who issued it namely Shri J. Kispotta (PW/6). Though it is claimed that the caste certificate was a forged document, but accused could not assail its authenticity during cross-examination, therefore, it is also established that prosecutrix was a member of scheduled tribe category with whom the offence of using criminal force for outraging her modesty was committed by accused. Therefore, the learned trial Court was also justified in holding the accused guilty of the offence of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act.

13. On the basis of foregoing discussion, the present appeal is allowed only partially and the conviction of accused under Section 456 IPC is hereby modified to Section 451 IPC, while for the rest of the three offence namely 323 and 354 IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Act, his conviction is upheld. So far as the sentence part is concerned, accused shall undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence of Section 451 IPC, 1 month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence of Section 323 IPC and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.500/- for the offence of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. For each default of payment of fine he shall

additionally undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed partially and disposed of. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. He be immediately taken into custody and be committed to jail for suffering the remaining part of the sentence.

15. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith record be sent to the Court below for information and necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE rv