Suresh Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:31332

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 266 of 2022

¶6

Suresh Patel S/o Shri Dirba Ram Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Bhiravahi Police Outstation- Kachche, ThanaBhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh).

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh).

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

______________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, PL

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶13

Judgment On Board

¶14

20/08/2024

¶15

The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374

¶16

(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge {Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes

¶17

2

¶18

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act}, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.15/2020, whereby the appellant

¶19

convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶20

Conviction	Sentence	In Default
Under Section 354 of the	R.I. for 01 year and fine amount of	In default of payment of
Indian Penal	Rs.500/-	fine amount,
Code		further RI for one month

¶21

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13/01/2020 at about 11 am in the forest of village Bhiravahi, victim was there with her father in law for cutting the woods and the appellant/accused was also on that spot and asked for the Tangiya (axe) for himself and after that he started harassing her. The victim called her father in law for helping, when he intervened then after some scuffle, accused flew from spot.

¶22

The matter was reported on the same day, mulahija was done, najari naksha was prepared, caste certificate of the victim was seized and statement was recorded and chargesheet was filed. Looking to the material available in the charge-sheet, the trial Court framed the charges under Section 354 of IPC & Section 3(1)(b) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant.

¶23

3

¶24

In order to prove the charges against the appellant (accused), prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellant.

¶25

After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this appeal. Hence, this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. He further contended that the appellant took tangiya for cutting woods from the victim and the dispute only arose due to the said petty object as she demanded it for her own use over this, the dispute has taken place and then the prosecutrix implicated the appellant in the present false and fabricates case. He further contended that from perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, nowhere allegation sustains as ingredients of Section 354 of IPC is attracted and the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the

¶27

4

¶28

offence under Section 3(1)(b) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, conviction against the appellant may be set aside.

¶29

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment passed by the Court below.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and gone through the evidence available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶31

Applicant Smt. Kamini Rawte (PW-1) has stated in her evidence recorded before the trial Court that on the date of incident, she had gone with her father-in-law Jeevan Lal to cut wood in the forest. Accused Suresh Patel followed her. The accused asked her where she was going, then she told him that she was going to cut wood. The accused came there and asked the tangiya (axe) he will cut the wood for her. After giving the axe to the accused, the victim went to collect the wood, then the accused left the axe and came and held both her hands to outrage her modesty. She called her father-in-law, then her father-in-law came on the spot,

¶32

5

¶33

then the accused pushed her and caught her father-in-law to beat him. When she screamed, the nearby cattle herder Parasadhu and other people came on the spot. Then, the accused left her father-in-law and ran away from there.

¶34

Jeevan Lal Rawte (PW-2) has stated in his evidence recorded before the trial Court that on the of incident, he had gone to field with his daughter-in-law (Kamni) to cut wood. The accused came there and asked for the tangia from his daughter-in-law saying that he would cut the wood. The accused started cutting the wood then his daughter-inlaw (Kamni) started lifting the dry wood. His daughter-in-law screamed then, he went there with his tangia and saw that the accused was holding both the hands of his daughter-inlaw. He freed his daughter-in-law and screamed then the Sadhu who was grazing cattle there and another person came there. Thereafter, the accused fled from there.

¶35

Dr. Sonam Kunjam (PW-6) posted at Community Health Centre, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, who examined the victim opined that on examining the victim, she did not find any injury on her body. The examination report is Ex.P.-13.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶37

6

¶38

submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and other material available on record.

¶39

In order to consider the version of the victim, I have to examine the evidence/material placed on record by the prosecution. Victim (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, she had gone with her father-in-law Jeevan Lal to cut wood in the forest. Accused- Suresh Patel followed her. The accused asked her where she was going, then she told him that she was going to cut wood. The accused came there and asked the tangiya (axe) he will cut the wood. She went a little further and was collecting wood, then the accused left the wooden basket and came and held both her hands to outrage her modesty. She called her father-in-law, then her father-in-law came on the spot, then the accused pushed her and caught her father-in-law to beat him. When she screamed, the nearby cattle herder Parasadhu and other people came on the spot. Then, the accused left her father-in-law and ran away from there.

¶40

The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant on the ground that the evidence adduced by prosecution has established beyond doubt that on the date of incident, the act committed by the accused with a view to outrage the

¶41

7

¶42

modesty of the victim. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is based upon the evidence available on record which is not perverse nor contrary to the records. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction part.

¶43

In view of above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court against the appellant is hereby affirmed/maintained.

¶44

The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly

¶45

dismissed .

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶48

Digitally VASANT signed by KUMAR VASANT KUMAR Vasant

Suresh Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faneshwar Yadav Vs Rajesh Jotwani

Birendra Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Japver Singh Grewal Vs Sandeep Pandey

Farasram Nagwanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

R. L. Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sanjeet Singh