Johe Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.2.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in

¶15

2

¶16

Special Case No.71/2004 whereby he stands convicted and sentenced as under:

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 454 of Indian Penal	RI for six months, pay a fine of
Code.	Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month.
Under Section 3(i)(xi) of	RI for six months, pay a fine of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled	Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)	suffer additional RI for one month.
Act, 1989

¶18

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶19

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.3.2004 at around 10 am complainant/prosecutrix was making food at her home, her husband had gone to Lohara and her in-laws to the agricultural field. At that time, the accused/appellant came to her home and told that he came to take the clothes given a month ago for stitching. When the complainant expressed her ignorance about it, he insisted for searching the same. While she was searching for his clothes, he came from behind, caught hold of her, outraged her modesty and proposed for making physical relation. On this, she abused him and ran out of the home. The accused then fled from there on his bicycle. She disclosed the incident to her husband in the evening and next day her husband along with the villagers went to the house of the accused where the accused offered Rs.4000/- in the panchayat for compromise.

¶20

3

¶21

However, on 24.3.2004 the complainant lodged a report against him. During investigation, spot map was prepared, cash of Rs.4000/- given by the accused in the panchayat was seized from Tadiram; caste certificate of the complainant was seized and after completing formalities of investigation, charge sheet under Section 456, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the Act of 1989") was filed against the appellant. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 454, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 against the accused/appellant, to which he abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

¶22

In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence he examined one Sautar as DW-1.

¶23

After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and liable to be set aside. The FIR was lodged with a delay of about five days without

¶25

4

¶26

any justifiable explanation. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that statements of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant suffer from contradiction and omission which makes the whole prosecution case doubtful against the appellant. Thus, looking the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, conviction of the appellant is not legally sustainable and he deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having regard to the overall evidence on record, oral and documentary, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Hence the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 454, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

¶30

PW-3 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident she was all alone at home and cooking Daliya (porridge). At around 10 am the

¶31

5

¶32

accused came to her home and asked for his clothes given for stitching. When she told him to come on some other day as she is all alone, he insisted for searching his clothes. While she was searching the clothes, he came from behind and pressed her breast and also asked for physical relation. However, she somehow freed herself from him and ran out of the home. The accused also followed her and fled from there. She narrated the incident to her husband in the evening who informed about it to his parents also. Next day her husband along with two elderly people of the village went to the village of the accused where panchayat was held. Her husband informed her that the accused has deposited Rs.4000/- with the Panch but they did not accept it and thereafter they lodged report Ex.P/3 which bears her signature from A to A part.

¶33

In cross-examination she states that at the time of incident she abused the accused, on which he went out of the home. She states that the accused and herself came out of the home almost together and she did not raise any hue and cry after coming out of the home. She admits that about a month ago the accused had given clothes to her husband for stitching and that prior to the incident, the accused had come 2-3 times earlier for taking his clothes. She states that she informed her husband about the incident on the same day but lodged report after four days. She clarifies that as her husband was ill for two days, therefore, report was not lodged earlier.

¶34

6

¶35

PW-4 husband of the complainant states that on the date of incident he had gone to Lohara in connection with stitching work and on his return in the evening his wife/complainant informed him about the incident. Next day he along with one elderly people of the village Babuji went to the Village-Relai of the accused where panchayat was held. In the panchayat, the accused initially denied the allegation but later on confessed the crime. Though the accused and his father were offering Rs.4,000/-, but he refused to accept it and told them of making a report. He states that after return from Village-Relai he fell ill and after recovery, went with his wife to lodge a report.

¶36

In cross-examination he admits that about a month prior to the date of incident, the accused had given clothes for stitching and that he had come 2-3 times earlier for taking his clothes. However, he denied the suggestion that he demanded Rs.25,000/- in panchayat at Relai.

¶37

PW-5 Babuji states that husband of the prosecutrix informed him that the accused outraged modesty of his wife. Thereafter, he along with the husband of the prosecutrix went to the village of the accused where in presence of elderly people of the village, initially the accused denied commission of crime but later on confessed and gave Rs.4,000/- for compromise. In cross-examination he admits that they called the father of the accused in the panchayat meeting where he was made to understand that if the prosecutrix reported the matter, his son would be sent to jail and then he accepted the mistake of accused

¶38

7

¶39

and asked the panchayat members to settle the matter. He also admits that at the time of incident the accused went to the house of the prosecutrix for taking his clothes.

¶40

PW-6 Jhadiram also states that panchayat was convened at the instance of husband of the prosecutrix where Rs.4000/- was offered by the accused for settling the matter which was kept with him and later on recovered by the police.

¶41

PW-2 Dr. Anjana Lal states that the prosecutrix was complaining of only pain in both side of her breast and there was no external injury on her body. Her medical report is Ex.P/2.

¶42

True it is that ordinarily the evidence of the prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if her evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. While rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim, a false allegation of rape causes equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. Indisputably, in a case of sexual assault, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.

¶43

8

¶44

Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position, close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that before lodging FIR, village panchayat was held where money was demanded for settling the matter. The incident is said to have taken place on 20.3.2004 whereas FIR (Ex.P/3) was lodged on 24.3.2004 with explanation for this delay as illness of husband of the prosecutrix. As per medical evidence, no external or internal injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix and she was only complaining of pain in her breast. Defence of the accused is that he had given some clothes to husband of the prosecutrix for stitching and when he demanded his clothes back he refused. Defence Witness Sautar has also supported the defence of the accused/appellant. The prosecutrix has admitted in crossexamination that after the incident, the accused and herself came out of the home almost together but she did not raise any hue and cry after coming out of the home. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the prosecutrix during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto, before lodging FIR village panchayat was convened; delay in lodging the FIR without any satisfactory explanation and the evidence of the witnesses, there appears a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case regarding involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. Being so, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt.

¶45

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the

¶46

9

¶47

charges under Section 454 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 by extending him benefit of doubt. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 437A of CrPC.

¶48

Digitally MOHD signed by AKHTAR MOHD KHAN AKHTAR KHAN

¶49

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶50

Khan

Johe Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johe Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuvan Lal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Mukhiya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Gupta and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Tamrakar Vs Sanjeet Kumar Vishwakarma

Fagun Ram @ Burhwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh