Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munnalal Tiwari vs State Of M.P. on 22 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 CRA-221-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 22 OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.221 of 2014
MUNNALAL TIWARI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Kumar Shama, Senior Advocate with Shri Nikhil Bhatele,
Advocate for appellant.
Shri Dinesh Savita, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 19.06.2025
Delivered on : 22.07.2025
JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section
374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
21.01.2014 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "Act, 1989")], Bhind
in Special Case No.21/2013, whereby appellant has beeen convicted
under Sections 3(1)(11) of the Act, 1989 and sentenced to suffer one year
RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
2. Admitted facts are that complainant/victim, who is a lady
Constable relates to Kori caste, which falls under the category of
2 CRA-221-2014
Schedule Caste community and the appellant, being a Brahman relates to
General category and appellant was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police and at the time of incident, complainant and the appellant both
were posted in same Police Control Room.
3. Brief facts of case of prosecution are that on 17.01.2013 in the
morning time, when complainant came to Police Control Room on her
duty, at that time, appellant was preparing DSR. Appellant called her and
asked that she will peruse, what is written in the DSR and as soon as, she
bent down to see the DSR, appellant hit on her breast by his hand and
tried to put his hand inside her Kurta with intention to outrage her
modesty and when she objected, then caught hold her and gagged her
mouth, but somehow she shouted, then Constable Shiv Singh and Jairam
came there. Thereafter, she tried to save herself, due to which, stitching of
her suit was unraveled and button of sweater has been removed. Prior to
this incident, appellant was used to harass the complainant by repeatedly
calling her with doing vulgar talks on telephone and also threatened her
that if she will not meet him, he will damage her career. Complainant
made a written complaint before Kotwali, Bhind. During the
investigation, her MLC has been conducted and mobile, microchip and
CD have been recovered from the possession of complainant and mobile
of the appellant was also seized.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
against the appellant. The Trial Court has framed the charges under
Section 3(1)(11) of the Act, 1989, in alternate Section 354 of IPC.
Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution
has examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses before the Trial Court,
while defence has examined three defence witnesses.
3 CRA-221-2014
5. The Trial Court after completion of the trial and scrutinizing all the
evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellant has preferred this criminal
appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant is
innocent. The Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant on the
basis of improper appreciation of evidence. The Trial Court has acquitted
the appellant from the charge under Section 354 of IPC, but on the similar
set of evidence, appellant has been wronly convicted for the aforesaid
offence. All the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses. There
are material contradictions and omissions in their statements. In fact,
appellant being a Senior Officer, before the incident sent a show cause
notice to the complainant regarding her absences, therefore, due to such
dispute, he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Alleged
eyewitnesses Shiv Singh (PW-2) and Reta Tomar (PW-3) have not
supported the case of prosecution. Hence, he prays that impugned
judgment be set aside and the appellant be acquitted from all the charges.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that after
appreciation of evidence available on record, the Trial Court has rightly
found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and he has been
adequately punished for it, therefore, no ground is available for
interfering in the impugned judgment and he prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. From perusal of statement of victim (PW-1), it is evident that she
categorically deposed in her statement that on 17.01.2013 at about 08:30
4 CRA-221-2014
AM, while she came to Police Control Room, Bhind on her duty, at that
time, the appellant was preparing DSR. When she reached nearby him,
appellant asked her to come and see that what is the written in the DSR.
As soon as, she bent down to see the DSR, at that time, appellant hit on
her breast by his hand and tried to put his hand inside her Kurta and when
she objected to it and tried to resist, then stitching of suit was unraveled
and a button of sweater was removed. Appellant had touched her breast
with bad intention, thereafter, she put off her shoes and beaten the
appellant by shoes. Victim also deposed that since last 3-4 months prior to
the incident, appellant was continuously harassing her and asking her to
meet him alone. Victim also deposed that she made a written complaint
which is Ex. P-1.
10. Shiv Singh (PW-2) also corroborated the statement of victim (PW-
1) and categorically deposed that after hearing the noise of victim, he
reached on the spot and found that appellant caught hold right hand of the
victim and victim narrated him that appellant called her, when he was
reading DSR, then appellant put his hand on her breast and grabbed her
mouth and prior to the incident, appellant used to talk her in vulgar
language through mobile. Renu Narwariya (PW-4) has also corroborated
the statement of victim.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is material
contradiction and omission in the Court statement and police statement of
victim (PW-1), but there is no material contradiction and omission in the
Court statement of victim (PW-1) and Shiv Singh (PW-2).
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana reported in 2015 (2) MPLJ (Note 7) (S.C.), has held that:-
"Minor discrepancies on trivial matter, not
5 CRA-221-2014
touching care of the case or not going to the root of the
matter. Such discrepancies could not result in rejection
of evidence as a whole. Court should ignore such
discrepancies which do not shed basic version of the
prosecution".
13. Appellant has taken a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the
matter because the victim being a lady Constable oftenly used to come
late on duty, therefore, he had given show cause notice to her. On this
reason, he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Appellant has
examined Constable Devendra Singh (DW-1), Constable Yogendra Singh
(DW-2) and Constable Ramendra Kumar Dwivedi (DW-3) in his defence,
but all three defence witnesses admit in their cross-examination that at the
time of incident, i.e., on 17.01.2013, they were not present on the spot
(Police Control Room), therefore, they are not the eyewitnesses and they
have narrated the incident only as hearsay witnesses. Apart from the
above, all these police constables were subordinate to the appellant, who
was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector, therefore, being an interested
witness, statements of these witnesses cannot be relied upon.
14. Even appellant also failed to produce any relevant correspondence
regarding issuance of aforesaid show cause notice to the victim by the
appellant. However, the victim (PW-1) denied all such allegation and
there is no oral or documentary evidence adduced by the appellant to
substantiate the aforesaid defence. Thus, there is nothing on record to
show that why the victim lady Constable would falsely implicate the
appellant in the process, risk her own reputation as a lady in the Indian
society.
15. In the case of Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra
and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 1677, Hon'ble Apex Court has
6 CRA-221-2014
observed in Para 12, which reads as under:
"12. What constitutes an outrage to female modesty
is nowhere defined. The essence of a woman's modesty is
her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux
of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant,
but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this
Section is an attribute associated with female human
beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female
owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing
her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse,
is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a
woman: and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be
outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without
any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its
object. As indicated above, the word 'modesty' is not
defined in I.P.C. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third
Edn.) defines the word 'modesty' in relation to woman as
follows:
"Decorous in manner and conduct; not
forward or lower Shame-fast; Scrupulously
chaste."
16. In the case of S.P.S. Rathore Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and another reported in (2017) 5 SCC 817, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
has held as under:-
"It is undoubtedly correct that if intention or
knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offence, it has
got to be proved like other ingredients for convicting a
person. But, it is also equally true that those ingredients
being state of mind may not be proved by direct evidence
and may have to be inferred from the attending
circumstances of a given case. The sequence of events
which we have detailed earlier indicates that the
appellant-accused had the requisite culpable intention."
17. On the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of
the opinion that the statement of the victim (PW-1) is quite convincing
7 CRA-221-2014
and it did not require any other corroboration, though as a fact there are
sufficient circumstances to prove in the case, which fully corroborated the
version of the victim. On scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence, this
Court came to a conclusion that the evidence of victim (PW-1) inspires
confidence and her statement is worthy of acceptance, therefore, this
Court is in agreement with learned Trial Court that evidence of victim has
rightly been accepted by the Trial Court for convicting the appellant
under Section 3(1)(11) of the Act, 1989 and the Trial Court has not
committed any error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence.
18. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has been failed to establish the charge of
aforesaid offence beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the Trial Court
has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the offence as
stated aforesaid. Sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is appropriate
in the present facts and circumstances and, consequently, conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court under Section 3(1)(11) of the Act,
1989 does not require any interference by this Court.
19. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 21.01.2014 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "Act,
1989")], Bhind in Special Case No.21/2013, is hereby affirmed.
20. Resultantly, this criminal appeal having no merit deserves to be and
is hereby dismissed.
21. Appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled
and he is directed to surrender forthwith before the Trial Court and he
should be taken into custody immediately to serve the remaining period
of conviction.
8 CRA-221-2014
22. Order regarding disposal of seized property passed by the Trial
Court is also affirmed.
23. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court along with
the record for necessary compliance.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
