Criminal appeal filed against conviction under SC ST Act and IPC. High Court held prosecution failed to prove case due to contradictions and lack of independent witnesses. Maintain benefit of doubt. Appeal allowed.
Impugned conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail maintained for six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2005
1. Naveen Singh S/o Shri Sagun Singh, aged about 42 years, R/o village Nariyara, PS Pamgarh, District Janjgir, Chhattisgarh.
| ---- Appellant | |
|---|---|
| Versus | |
| h Police | Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir ---- Respondent |
1. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
| For Appellant | : Mr. U. K. S. Chandel, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For State | : Mr. R. M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate |
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board
16.02.2023
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.07.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC ST Act, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No.73/04 the present appeal has been filed. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant herein stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 451 & 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.250/- with default stipulation of SI for 7 days, on each count. In addition, the appellant also stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.250/- with default stipulation of SI for 7 days.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on the date of incident i.e. on 11.09.2003 at around 3 p.m. the appellant is said to have entered into the house of complainant PW-1 and tried to outrage her modesty while other accused persons were standing as guard at the door of the house of complainant. It is only when the complainant raised her alarm that all the accused persons ran away.
-2-
3. The complaint was lodged before Police Station Pamgarh on 12.09.2003 at around 3.30 p.m. The matter was thereafter put to trial where the accused persons were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 354 of IPC and 3 (1)(xi) of SC ST Act.
4. The Trial Court, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, acquitted the two other accused persons namely Manish Sahu and Virendra Yadav of all the charges and it is only the appellant who has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as reflected in the preceding paragraph.
5. The contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and that the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent, substantive evidence to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant. It is the contention of appellant that there was a dispute in respect of the premises which was occupied by the complainant/victim and which was being sought to be vacated by the appellant and other persons who were in fact the owners and caretakers of a Shrikrishna temple. The house which was occupied by the complainant was within the premises of the said temple. It is the further contention of counsel for appellant that the Court below has failed to appreciate the witnesses examined on defence by the appellant, all of whom have specifically established the dispute and the motive and intention for falsely implicating the present appellant. It is the further contention of appellant that the material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and it is only the interested witnesses whose evidence has been relied upon by the Trial Court and the appellant has been held guilty for the said offence.
6. It was the further contention of the appellant that the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution witnesses have themselves
-3-
made contradictory statements which would make the entire prosecution case weak and highly doubtful. It is the further contention of the appellant that the statement of victim itself would be sufficient to reach to a conclusion that the offence under section 354 of IPC is not made out and that the necessary ingredients for the said offence is lacking. Further the ingredients required for the making out an offence under section 3 (1) (11) of the ST &ST atrocities Act also is lacking in the prosecution case.
7. According to the appellant there is a material contradictions in the statement of the victim herself so far as the timing of the incident, the role played by the present appellant and as regards the two offences under the two Acts.
8. The state counsel on the other hand opposing the appeal submits that the prosecution has infact been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. All the prosecution witnesses have been able to make a consistent stand on the incident that occurred. According to him there is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant knew that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Tribe category and yet knowing fully well uninvitedly had entered into the house of the victim when she was alone with an intention to outrage her modesty.
9. The State counsel further submits that the appellant has not been able to convincingly establish and disprove the case of the prosecution and make out a case of false implication. That, all the suggestions made to all the prosecution witnesses have been categorically denied. Thus, the State counsel prays for rejection of the present appeal.
10. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the records what is reflected is that there was an FIR lodged on 12. 09.2003 at Police Station, Pamgarh. Three persons were named in the FIR, the appellant along with two other accused persons namely Manish Sahu and
-4-
Virendra Yadav. The two other accused persons stood acquitted from all the charges that were leveled against them, however it was only the appellant who was convicted for the charges that were leveled against him.
11. Taking into consideration the contents of the FIR, and on the perusal of the statements of the complainant PW1 Narmada Bai, there is yet another aspect which needs to be considered is the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant. All that the complainant has stated is that firstly uninvited he entered the house of the complainant and the two co-accused were standing as guard out of the house. Secondly, after entering into the house the appellant had only caught hold of her hand and he has not done any thing else. Likewise there is also no trace of any act either by way of words or by way of action which would make out a case under section 3 (1)(11) of SC & ST Act. Therefore, the case of the prosecution to some extent becomes doubtful. What has also come on record is that the family of the appellant and the family of the victim were well known to each other.
12. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case under section 3 (1) (11) of the SC&ST Act beyond all reasonable doubts, the benefit of which has to go in favour of the appellant.
13. Taking into consideration the contents of the FIR and reading of the contents of the statement given by the complainant PW1 before the court, what is apparently revealed is that the victim had unauthorizedly occupied the house where she was residing. There was no proper authorization by the temple management, the committee or the owners of the said property permitting the complainant to occupy the said house. From the statement of the other witnesses examined, particularly the family members, they have also not explained satisfactorily as to how they came in possession of the said house. On the contrary, there is an admission that the property
-5-
was within the temple premises. There is also an admission of the fact that the appellant herein was the owner of the said premises. There was also a consistent stand taken by the defence by putting questions in the cross examination as to the false implication of the appellant only on account of the appellant was insisting the complainant for vacating the said premises occupied by the complainant.
14. Another aspect which needs consideration is the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant. The stand of the complainant all along was that the present appellant came to her house along with two other coaccused persons. It was also the stand of the complainant that the two accused persons stood as a guard outside the house when the present appellant entered the room where she was. Her statement does not disclose any utterance of any word by the present appellant while he was inside the house, nor is there any action on the part of the appellant disclosed by the complainant with which it could be alleged that he had gone to the house only with an ill intention of outraging her modesty. Under the normal circumstances, it would have been the natural reaction of a person who illegally entered the house with an intention of outraging the modesty of the victim of doing some act with which it could be attributed that he had ill intentions in his mind.
15. In the instant case, the only allegation is that of holding the hand of the complainant without uttering even a single word and thereafter immediately leaving the room. All these makes the prosecution story so also the allegation of the complainant highly improbable. The other natural reaction that would have been on the part of the complainant was of running out of the house and raising an alarm and calling upon the neighbors of the said vicinity where she was residing. This vital fact is also missing in the prosecution story except the fact that she thereafter went to
-6-
the house of her in-laws and there she has narrated the whole thing. There is no explanation as to why she did not raise an alarm and called upon the neighbours.
16. There is also no witness of the same vicinity examined who could have supported the case of the complainant in respect of the incident that transpired which again makes the prosecution case and the version of the complainant highly doubtful and improbable.
17. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution were related to the complainant and all belonged to the same family. The version of all the relevant witnesses related to the complainant cannot be blindly accepted without any corroboration or a supporting evidence from independent witnesses. In addition, the witnesses examined in defence also give a strong indication and hint of the entire action being falsely levelled against the appellant so as to put pressure upon the appellant not to insist the complainant from vacating the house she was occupying which is otherwise owned by the appellant.
18. The complainant-victim herself in her statement has stated that subsequently upon constructing her own house, she has shifted to the new house. This fact gives an indication that the suggestions made in the course of cross examination of the witnesses that the matter has been falsely levelled against the appellant so as to avoid the eviction/vacation of the house occupied by the complainant cannot be ruled out. In the given circumstances, the prosecution case and the version of the complainant therefore becomes highly doubtful and the benefit of doubt therefore has to be extended in favour of the appellant.
19. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has also failed to prove the case under Sections 451 and 354 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts, the benefit of which has to go in favour of the appellant. The
-7-
finding of the trial court of convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(11) of the SC & ST Act and also the offence under Sections 451 and 354 of IPC are liable to be set aside and is ordered accordingly.
20. As a consequence, giving the appellant the benefit of doubt, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 451 & 354 of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act therefore stands set aside/quashed. The appellant stands acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond of the Appellant shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The appeal stands allowed.
inder
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC ST Act beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the evidence established the offence under Sections 451 and 354 of IPC against the appellant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Naveen Singh
State of Chhattisgarh
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
