RAMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant stands convicted under Section 354, IPC to six month's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 451, IPC to six month's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1.000/-. In the event of failure to pay fine, he was required to undergo three months further rigorous imprisonment on each count as ordered by the Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Special Case No. 61 of 2002 dated 18th January 2002.

(2.) FIR. Exhibit P/1 was lodged on 15th November. 2001 at 19:10 hours by PW I, Geeta for the occurrence the same day at 4:00 o'clock. The informant stated that she lived with her grandfather. PW 2. Sukhram. On the fateful day. her grandfather had gone to answer the call of nature. At thet time, the Appellant came to her house and asked if she was alone. On her answer in me affirmative finding her alone, with the intention to outrage her modesty. the Appellant pressed her breasts and opened her sari. The Appellant left when she shouted for help warning her not to disclose the occurrence to anyone, else he would finish her. The informant then informed her neighbour PW 3. Sanath Kumar Lahre, co-villagers. Jethudas and Kisundas and then came to the Police Station with her grandfather PW 2, Nandkumar and Balakdas for lodging the report. PW 4. Indrabhushan Singh, proved the recording of the FIR by him stating that it was recorded correctly as per the statement of PW 1. PW 6. S. R. Salam, the S.D.P.O. was the Investigating Officer, who filed the charge-sheet. He denied that he had made any recording under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of PW 1 contrary to what she may have stated during investigation.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there are several contradictions between the statement of PW 1 under S.161 Cr.P.C. and the deposition in Court with regard to the manner and sequence of events during the occurrence. Embellishments have been made during deposition in Court attributing statements to the Appellant and with regard to his conduct during the alleged occurrence. The possibility of false implication due to local village politics by tutoring PW 1, who was a minor aged 15 years could not be ruled out. The benefit of the same must be given to the Appellant by holding that the case had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.