PARMESHWAR RAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is alleged that on 08.10.2006 in the noon hours, when the prosecutrix was alone in her house, the accused-appellant herein came there and asked as to where her family members were. When the prosecutrix told the accused-appellant that her husband had gone to his work-place, he caught hold of her right hand and tried to drag her inside the room saying that on earlier occasion she has not reached near the pond even after being called by him. When accused-appellant told the prosecutrix not to leave him on that day, she somehow managed to wriggle out of his clutches, and went to took shelter in another room by bolting the door from inside. Even thereafter, the accused-appellant kept waiting outside by smoking Bidi and when the prosecutrix did not open the door for some time, he left the place. Thereafter, on hearing the call of daughter of her neighbor Pannalal she opened the door and that her sister-in-law namely Phool Kunwar (PW-4) had seen the accused-appellant running away. She has expressed her apprehension that had she not managed to come out of the clutches of accused-appellant he would have outraged her modesty on that very day. The report further says that after her husband Tuleshwar (PW-2) got back home in the evening, the matter was disclosed to him and thereafter written report (Ex-P/2) was given in the concerned out-post on the basis of which FIR (Ex-P/7) came to be recorded on 10.10.2006, for the offence under Sections 454 and 354 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accusedappellant under the same sections with an addition of the charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for brevity the " Special Act ") followed by framing of charges accordingly.

(2.) Learned Court below vide judgment impugned dated 26.07.2007 passed in Special S.T. No.13/2007 holding the accusedappellant guilty under Sections 454 IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act. Section 354 IPC being a corollary to the one under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Special Act, learned Court below did not record any finding on that point. While holding the accused-appellant guilty under the Special Act and the IPC, a sentence of six months R.I. has been imposed for each offence with imposition of fine of Rs.200/-, plus default stipulations. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that in spite of number of contradictions and omissions in the written report, FIR and the Court statement of the prosecutrix, learned Court below has committed a gross legal error in holding the accused-appellant guilty under the Special Act as also under Section 454 IPC. He submits that the accused-appellant at the time of commission of offence was not having any intention to dishonor or outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix just because she belonged to Scheduled Caste category and the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the special act are not attracted to the case in hand. He submits that the findings recorded by the Court below being not based on the evidence collected by the prosecution could not be sustained, and therefore liable to be set aside in toto.