Partly allowed

Ratan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2023CRA/800/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed the criminal appeal. It acquitted the appellant of the atrocity charge due to lack of proof regarding the intent to dishonour caste. The conviction for outraging modesty under IPC 354 was maintained, but the jail term was commuted to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted of charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of ST Act; conviction under IPC Section 354 maintained but sentence reduced to period undergone.

Ratan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 2003

¶5

Reserved on 07.08.2023

¶6

Delivered on 10.08.2023

¶7

Ratan Singh, Aged About 20 Years, S/o Agahan Singh Patel, R/o Chaitma, P.S. Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶14

C A V J U D G M E N T

¶15

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.07.2003 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocity) Bilaspur in Special Case No.150/2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 354 of IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each count.

¶16

2. The facts of case in brief are that on the date of incident i.e. on 13.09.2001, while the prosecutrix was lifting cement bag at her work place, the appellant who was also working at the same place, pressed her breast with an intention of outraging her modesty. Subsequently, the prosecutrix pushed the appellant back and ran away to her house

¶17

¶18

weeping and told the entire incident to her parents. An FIR in this regard was lodged by the prosecutrix and after investigation chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶19

3. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses in support of its case whereas one witness was examined by the defence. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶20

4. After trial the Special Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant has done the alleged act with an intention and knowledge that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He further submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, at best, offence under section 354 of IPC would be made out against the appellant for which he has already remained in jail for a period of one month five days. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST Act. In support of his contention counsel for appellant relied upon a judgment of this High Court in the case of Tribhuwan Kashyap v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) in CRA No.1420/2000 decided on 08.09.2017.

¶22

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits

¶23

¶24

that the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

¶25

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.

¶26

8. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has supported the FIR Ex. P-4. According to the prosecutrix, on the date of incident she along with Kamla Bai PW-4 had gone to work in a culvert. The appellant was also working as labourer at the said place. The prosecutrix along with PW-4 and the appellant went to the government house to get cement bags. The appellant first put the cement bag on the head of PW-4 and she left the house. Thereafter the prosecutrix told the appellant to keep one cement bag on her head as the prosecutrix was also lifting the cement bag but she could not keep it on her head. At that time the appellant started pressing her breast. The prosecutrix told the appellant to leave her but he could not leave. Then the prosecutrix shook off the appellant and ran away weeping. The statement made by the prosecutrix has been supported by Kamla Bai (PW-4) to the extent that the prosecutrix after coming back home told her that the appellant had molested her. From the evidence of Defence witness Yunus Mohamad it is established that the prosecutrix was present at the workplace with the appellant and from where the prosecutrix came out weeping. The prosecutrix has remained consistent in her entire evidence. Therefore, the offence under section 354 of IPC is apparently made out against the appellant.

¶27

9. At this juncture it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC ST Act which is as under:

¶28

¶29

Punishments for offences of atrocities -

¶30

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -

¶31

(xi) “assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty.”

¶32

10. If we read the provision of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act it would reflect that the first part of the said Section says the offence of assault or use of force against a woman belonging to SC or ST and the second part deals with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty.

¶33

11. Caste certificate Ex. P-2 was proved by PW-5 Smt. Chandrakanta Dhruw (Additional Tahsildar). The said caste certificate shows that the prosecutrix belongs to “Gond” caste i.e. Scheduled Tribe. But the prosecutrix in her entire evidence has not stated that the appellant had known her caste and committed the said offence with an intention and knowledge that she belongs to a particular caste.

¶34

12. In the instant case, the element required for establishing the first part of the said provision of 3 (1) (xi) of the Act i.e. intention to dishonour the caste has not been established. The reading of entire evidence led by the prosecution itself shows that there is no element of evidence in respect of the intention of appellant to dishonour the caste of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the appellant that she was subjected to the alleged offence just because she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out against the

¶35

¶36

appellant.

¶37

13. In view of above, the appellant is hereby acquitted of the charge under section 3 (1) (xi) of ST & ST Act but the conviction of appellant under section 354 of IPC is maintained.

¶38

14. So far as the sentence part under section 354 of IPC is concerned, considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2001 and thereby a period of more than 21 years has rolled down, at the time of commission of offence the appellant was aged around 19-20 years and now he must be about 41-42 years of age having family responsibilities and the appellant has already remained in jail for one month 5 days, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 354 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the jail sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court under Section 354 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶39

15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶40

16. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶41

17. The records of trial Court be sent back with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶42

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶43

Khatai

Ratan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuleshwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiva @ Shiv Basta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nizam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhanna Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pana Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh